ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Human Rights Legislation

Simon Burns: What his policy is on the application of human rights legislation to service personnel on the battlefield.

Andrew Robathan: What guidance he issues to armed forces personnel on operations on their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.

John Hutton: We are strongly committed to protecting the human rights of our armed forces. However, the implications of the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case arising from the tragic death of Private Jason Smith could open the door to routine legal challenges against the Ministry of Defence to decisions made by service personnel entrusted with the conduct of operations. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made these concerns clear in his own message to the armed forces. I am urgently considering the matter, and will decide shortly whether we need to appeal the decision to the House of Lords.

Simon Burns: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of retrospective claims that may be brought against the Department in the light of the recent Court of Appeal judgment?

John Hutton: I have not made any assessment of that; it is not clear to me that the judgment would have retrospective effect. That would have to be examined initially as part of the careful consideration that lawyers in the Ministry need to give the judgment. However, my real concern is whether we can stand aside and see bold decision making by battlefield commanders inhibited by anxiety about a legal process over which they will have no say and no control. Those are very serious matters. We have a clear duty of care to our soldiers, sailors and airmen, which we intend to discharge fully, but the case raises a set of issues that are complicated and fundamental. That is why it is right that—with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of others—we take time to consider it carefully.

Andrew Robathan: I am sure that the House wishes to send its condolences to Jason Smith's family; it is a tragic case. However, although we wish the Government well, I fear that the problem is one of the Government's own making, through their human rights legislation. There is no greater breach of human rights than being shot on the battlefield—and that is what we expect our soldiers to go out and risk. What exactly are the Government planning to do, beyond appeal? If the law stands, will not the Government have to change it to rectify the situation?

John Hutton: I do not want to indulge in hypotheticals, but I cannot resist the temptation. If we were to lose the appeal and the current interpretation of the law were confirmed, it would pose us a serious problem, which would have to be addressed. I personally do not believe that the framers of the European convention had it in mind when it was drafted that it would ever apply to soldiers in a battlefield situation. If I am wrong, and if the House of Lords took a different decision if we appealed, Ministers would have to consider seriously the position that would then arise.

Ken Purchase: This is a very serious matter, and I urge the Secretary of State to consider wisely and make an appeal as necessary. We are witnessing the possibility of sending serving soldiers into battle with no guns or other weapons, and with their hands tied behind their backs. It is an impossible situation—unless we can enforce human rights codes on the opposition, such as Hezbollah or the Taliban; that would be a step in the right direction. In the meantime we must treat the matter seriously and regard it as a matter of high principle for the Government, and ensure that our soldiers have the proper protection that they need when going to war on our behalf.

John Hutton: I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. When our troops are committed to battle, the public want and expect only one thing: that they can do everything they need to do to win the battles that they are fighting. Anything that makes it harder to win the fights that they are in must be resisted strongly. Without allowing my hon. Friend to draw me any further, I can say that we are still examining the judgment carefully, and we will decide shortly whether to appeal.

David Taylor: I note from the press that companies such Capita, Manpower and Serco are forming a disorderly queue to get the plum £100 million contract for outsourced recruitment of people into our forces. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that, given their lack of knowledge of service life, that contract will not be extended to promote the ideas of human rights legislation in a battlefield context, about which they know equally little?

John Hutton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that point into this exchange. There is no question of private contractors being employed in a battlefield environment, so I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's concerns are likely to materialise.

Patrick Mercer: Can the Secretary of State confirm that military lawyers and senior commanders have already started work fully to appreciate the tactical and strategic implications, should the judgment pass into law?

John Hutton: Yes.

Andrew Murrison: I would like to express the condolences of the Opposition to the family of Private Smith, and also to the families of those who have fallen since we last met. They gave their young lives in the service of our country, and their sacrifice must never be forgotten. The Minister of State has said that the Court of Appeal's judgment of 19 May has serious implications for our ability to conduct military operations overseas. Given the Secretary of State's belated fears for operational effectiveness, could he say what representations his predecessors made when his Government were falling over themselves to incorporate the European convention on human rights into the Human Rights Act?

John Hutton: I think that human rights legislation is important. It has helped to embed a human rights culture in the United Kingdom and in our judiciary, which is very important. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the solution to the problem is to repeal the Human Rights Act. The European convention was always justiciable through the route of the European Court of Human Rights, so that would be a false path to tread. The problem has arisen because of subsequent interpretations of the parameters of the convention, not because of the Human Rights Act. The difficulty for us all in this House is that when we start down a road with a clear understanding of where we think the parameters lie, but then find that someone has moved those parameters, that poses a set of challenges about judgments that we may have to make in the House at some point in the future. None the less, that is the right way to see the problem—not to try, as the hon. Gentleman has, to put the blame on this Government, who rightly took the step of enacting the convention in the Human Rights Act.

Piracy

Mark Pritchard: What steps he is taking to protect shipping around the horn of Africa from piracy.

Bob Ainsworth: The UK takes the protection of merchant shipping very seriously, and many personnel, both in the UK and overseas, are engaged in activities relating to the suppression of piracy around the horn of Africa. This includes the provision of command and control functions for both UK and international military vessels. We are working with the UK shipping industry, other Departments and international partners to co-ordinate, educate and support merchant shipping in the region.

Mark Pritchard: With the Santa Maria in 1961, the Achille Lauro in 1985, the attempted hijacking of the Seabourn Spirit in 2005 and the attempted hijackings of other cruise ships in the past few weeks, how confident is the Minister that the British travelling public, who form the vast majority of cruise ship passengers, are safe off the horn of Africa? Obviously we are talking about pirates now, but they could well graduate from commercial ships to cruise ships.

Bob Ainsworth: There has been a big increase in the number of patrols: there are not only those run by the European Union; many other nations have also been participating. Even though most of those other nations are not prepared to fall under the command of others, they are more than happy to co-operate and ensure that what is being done is properly co-ordinated and therefore most effective. There is also a big operation involving the exchange of information from the United Kingdom in Northwood to ensure that we can pass information between nations safely and securely, so as best to attack the problem of piracy. Piracy is a real problem around the horn of Africa, but it will not be solved entirely in the maritime area.

Ann Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what he knows about the involvement of the Kenyan armed forces in the work of defeating piracy in the horn of Africa? I was in Kenya last October and many parliamentarians there were concerned about the situation, so I wonder where we stand now.

Bob Ainsworth: We should be enormously grateful to the Kenyan Government for the assistance that they have been giving us and for being prepared, in some circumstances, to bring those accused of piracy to justice in the Kenyan legal system. Kenya is directly affected by piracy, which attacks trade to Kenya. Indeed, a lot of the World Food Programme supplies to parts of Somalia come through Kenya; those ships have been targeted and are at risk too.

Robert Goodwill: Increasing numbers of ransoms are being paid, and the pirates are now investing that money in better equipment and better weaponry. Does the Minister share my concern that if the problem is not nipped in the bud, the situation will escalate to the extent that many more people may be killed?

Bob Ainsworth: I am sorry to say that it is a bit late to nip the problem in the bud as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It has been going on for some time now, and the amount of activity and the preparedness of the pirates to go further out to sea to attack vessels—right out into the Indian ocean, for example—make it extremely difficult to offer full protection over such vast areas of sea. The reactions of the international shipping organisations need to be properly thought through. Their governance of their ships, and their preparedness to co-operate in the channelling of shipping that now takes place, and to accept our advice, ought to reduce the problem. We believe that this activity has led to an increase in the number of unsuccessful attacks, but in the past those organisations have been prepared to offer ransoms, which are hugely attractive to the individuals involved. It is hard to put in place sufficient deterrents to counteract the attraction of such large amounts of money.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister confirm that if the Royal Navy comes under armed attack from pirates, it is entitled to use lethal force immediately? Will he also confirm that if the Royal Navy captures armed pirates, there is no longer any risk of their claiming asylum, and that they will instead be handed over to the nearest appropriate jurisdiction?

Bob Ainsworth: We have looked into that question, and made sure that the Royal Navy has rules of engagement sufficient for the tasks that we ask it to do. In any circumstances, it can always defend itself if it comes under attack. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be true, because he knows a considerable amount about this subject. We have no intention of providing a taxi service for asylum seekers through the Royal Navy. We have received the co-operation of countries in the area— Kenya, in particular, as I have said—in bringing these people to justice. We will take robust action, and we are also helping with the biggest single effort being made at the moment—the co-ordination of the many different nations operating in the area. There are Russian and Chinese ships in the area, as well as those of NATO countries, and they are all prepared to co-operate and to co-ordinate their activities. The Royal Navy has provided a superb facility in assisting and enabling that co-operation to take place.

Afghanistan

John Robertson: What plans he has for the future provision of military equipment to service personnel in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Quentin Davies: We plan to continue to supply our troops in Afghanistan with the best possible equipment: personal equipment, weapons and communication systems, as well as intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—ISTAR—assets, armoured vehicles, helicopters, electronic countermeasures and all the rest. Highlights this year so far have been the delivery to theatre of Mastiff 2, Ridgback and Panther. I hope that in the next couple of months we shall deliver Jackal 2, and in the course of the year we shall make more Chinooks available for deployment in Afghanistan, as well as the first Merlins to be used there. Early next year, the new upgraded Lynxes will be delivered.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that extensive answer. He will be aware of the comments by Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the Army, who said that he was worried about the distant future and the need to "muddle through" that might arise in respect of the weapons that are to be sent to the Army. He also said that the weapons were not up to the standard required, and that they arrived too late. Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with Sir Richard, and if so, what was the outcome?

Quentin Davies: I have regular discussions with Sir Richard Dannatt, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and regard. He is a very fine officer—and I have to say that I think that he has been misquoted by my hon. Friend. I am quite certain that he did not say those things about the weapons that we are delivering to Afghanistan being inappropriate. As for their being too late, I have just given an example of how we are delivering weapons systems and other equipment remarkably rapidly, sometimes within six months of the order going out to the supplier.

James Arbuthnot: May I ask a question about helicopters? Incidentally, I am delighted that RAF Odiham in my constituency has been reprieved, and I hope that it now faces a long period of stability and investment. I want to ask about helicopters in the coming period. In the next three or four years, as old helicopters are phased out and before new ones have come on stream, there is likely to be a reduction in the availability of helicopters. What do the Government propose to do about that gap?

Quentin Davies: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his advocacy of RAF Odiham, for which he is famous in the House, and I am glad that he is happy with the news of the latest developments. As for helicopters, I look forward to discussing that matter in greater detail with the Defence Committee, to which I have been invited, tomorrow. As I think he knows, we are looking at a series of possible upgrades and life extension programmes for our existing fleet of helicopters, as well as focusing on the need for the future medium helicopter. Decisions on all these matters will be taken in the coming months. It will give me great pleasure to go through some of the issues with the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow, if he so wishes. As I frequently say—internally and, increasingly, externally—when it comes to helicopters, I am interested in outputs rather than inputs. Since November 2006—if I have the figures absolutely correct—we have succeeded in achieving an 80 per cent. increase in the helicopter hours available to commanders in Afghanistan. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman regards that, as I do, as a fine achievement and a positive step in the right direction.

Rosie Cooper: Can the Minister confirm that the problems experienced with rucksacks that are ill-fitting with the body armour that we supply to our armed forces in Afghanistan have now been resolved? Does he agree that in dealing with problems like this, it is imperative to act quickly?

Quentin Davies: I am totally with my hon. Friend on that latter point. Yes, we have looked into issues surrounding the burden of rucksacks in relation to the armour and so forth. It is an enormously important issue, because our troops have to carry enormous weights in very hot conditions, and I am concerned to ensure that we do everything possible continually to improve their personal equipment. The whole procurement function, as I see it, is one of managing continuing improvement. We have to remain flexible, we have to remain alert, and we have to ensure that everything we do gets better all the time. That has indeed been the story of our recent achievement, and we will continue it further. In the course of the next couple of months I shall be in Afghanistan again, and I shall talk, as I have before, individually to many people in all ranks about their issues with equipment, including the personal equipment to which my hon. Friend referred, and what they feel about all aspects of it.

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister will be well aware of the considerable overstretch that our troops face in Afghanistan, so can he update the House and tell us whether he has had any success in persuading other European members of NATO to supply more military equipment for our forces out there?

Quentin Davies: I do not accept the hon. Lady's characterisation of the situation as one of overstretch. Of course, our forces have been under considerable stretch recently—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] "Overstretch" implies that our troops are being asked to undertake tasks that they are not able to undertake, which has not been the situation. The distinction between stretch and overstretch is very important, and I hope that she recognises it. Furthermore, with the end of our operations in Iraq, the stretch and the stress have been reduced. The hon. Lady will know that our last combat troops came back from Iraq just last week—indeed, I was privileged to be at RAF Honington when the RAF Regiment returned after a gallant deployment—so she is looking at the issue from the wrong angle. That said, yes, we have made considerable progress in persuading our NATO allies to make further contributions. The French, for example, have doubled theirs from 2,000 to 4,000 troops.

Linda Gilroy: I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) mentioning the weight of the personal equipment that our service personnel have to carry. Will the Minister tell the House a little more, particularly about body armour and the personal electronic countermeasures equipment, which seem to be the two main sources of the problem? What is being done to try to reduce the weight of those particular items?

Quentin Davies: A great deal of work is being done to improve the armour. I believe that our Osprey armour is the best armour available to anyone in the world today. We would like to improve it further and make it more effective; at the same time—there are obviously trade-offs to be made here—we would like to make it lighter if we can. We are making a continuing effort on electronic counter-measures, but I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that it would be in nobody's interest—least of all that of our troops deployed in Afghanistan—for me to go into the details in public.

Bernard Jenkin: We are indeed looking forward to seeing the Minister before the Select Committee tomorrow. We just hope that he will allow time for us to ask the questions.
	Apart from the helicopters, what equipment is being reassigned from Iraq to Afghanistan?

Quentin Davies: I may say to the hon. Gentleman that when I appear before a Select Committee, I regard the time involved as a matter for the Committee. I shall be there for as long as the Committee requires me to be there.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, probably the most important asset to be reassigned from Iraq to Afghanistan immediately—or at least within a few months, after some maintenance and upgrade work—will be the Merlins. A number of other individual items of equipment may go to Afghanistan, but no precise decisions have been made about that yet.

David Kidney: Concerns remain about the loss of lives as a result of improvised explosive devices. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the urgency that he attaches to the provision of greater armour for vehicles to protect our troops from explosions of that kind?

Quentin Davies: As my hon. Friend probably recognised, many of the vehicles that I listed earlier are new generation. Mastiff 2 will follow Mastiff 1, Jackal 2 will follow Jackal 1 within the next couple of months, and Snatch Vixen will follow Snatch. Each of those developments involves a considerable enhancement in the survivability and protection afforded by the vehicles concerned. It is clear that there is no way in which a vehicle can be protected against absolutely any level of blast—and, sadly, that there is no way in which we can engage in armed conflict without losing troops. That is a tragic but, I am afraid, inescapable fact. We make continual efforts to improve our game, re-examining our tactics and counter-measures and trying to make them more effective, and we are succeeding—although, as I have said, I will not talk about that in public for obvious reasons. We are providing a new and ever-enhanced series of armoured vehicles and other forms of protection, and I look forward to reporting to the House on further improvements in future.

Nick Harvey: In the light of reports that American-fired enhanced-blast munitions may have caused 140 civilian deaths in an air strike on 4 May, can the Minister guarantee that British munitions, which have been used 43 times in the last year, have not killed civilians in Afghanistan? What precautions are we taking to ensure that they do not? Can pilots really see whether civilians are in target buildings? Does the Minister understand the fear that the use of such indiscriminate weapons might undermine the popular civilian support that is so essential to NATO's operation?

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard and who I know to be a considerable expert on military matters, uses terms that I am surprised to hear him use in this context. He knows that none of the NATO forces involved operate indiscriminately in any way. The word is completely inappropriate.
	I cannot comment on the specific American operation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Obviously I know nothing about it, because it does not fall within my direct responsibility. I can, however, tell him that enormous attention is paid by British forces to the need to avoid collateral damage and civilian deaths. In an armed conflict, as ever in the whole of human history, that can never be achieved 100 per cent., but we make great efforts. It is a difficult and serious trade-off—particularly given that someone may put their own personnel at risk by not taking action that they might otherwise have taken in defence of our own operations, or our own troops, because of a fear of civilian deaths or collateral damage.

Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister agree with the former Secretary of State, who described the Pinzgauer Vector as
	"an excellent solution to our soldiers' requirements",
	or does he now accept that, at a cost of more than £100 million, it was a massive defence acquisition fiasco—as some of us on the Conservative Benches have pointed out, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton)? If so, what has he done to improve the technical evaluation process to restore our troops' confidence in the acquisition process? That is the very least that they should expect from the Government.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman should wake up a bit, get with it and start to look at the realities of life. The fact of the matter is that those who invest in a portfolio of armoured vehicles, as we are doing—or, indeed, in a range of equipment for any purpose in this world—will want to ensure that they have the best, in terms of meeting different mobility, capability, fire power, protection and other requirements. We will inevitably have some vehicles that are less effective than others; we will inevitably have some successes and some failures— that is what a portfolio policy is all about, by the way. Vector was not a success and it is being withdrawn. Its problem has been its "operationability": it has great difficulty carrying some of the loads that it is required to carry on the Afghan terrain. It has not been able to live up to expectations there, and we will be replacing it with the new tactical support vehicles that we have ordered—the Coyote, the Husky and the Wolfhound—which I have mentioned in the House in different contexts. That is one more example of this steady process of flexibility, improvement and enhancement, which is the policy to which we are committed.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Mary Creagh: What contribution the Government are making to the MONUC peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Bob Ainsworth: We are making a valuable contribution to the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—MONUC—by deploying experienced officers into key posts, with their agreement. We will shortly be increasing our contribution to seven officers with the addition of a two-star deputy force commander.

Mary Creagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention recently met Alan Doss, the new head of MONUC forces in the DRC. One of the issues that he raised with us was the need for US and UK security services to share intelligence with MONUC better if we are to track down the dissident groups operating in the east of the country. It is imperative that that intelligence is shared if security is to be restored in the east of the DRC, where Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army, the CNDP, and the Hutu militia force, the FDLR, are still causing chaos and huge humanitarian disruption.

Bob Ainsworth: Obviously, we share my hon. Friend's desire to see the disruption in the DRC brought to an end and the humanitarian crisis that has flowed from it reduced and stopped. I am not aware of difficulties in the sharing of appropriate intelligence. If she has any information in that regard that she wishes to pass on to me, I will look into it and try to ensure that, where appropriate, we give people any information that we have that would be useful to that end.

Tony Baldry: It is good news that we are giving money to the Conflict Prevention Pool, and a certain number of key people and a certain amount of funding to MONUC; I believe that it is nearly 10 per cent. of its funding. Does the Minister agree that unless other UN member states with reasonable lift capacity are willing to contribute, with a degree of leadership, to initiatives, be it MONUC in the DRC or those in Darfur, we simply will not make progress? These peacekeeping operations appear to be just marking time: we are not making progress and there is not the required grip, because member states that could give that grip of leadership are not participating.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the vast spaces involved in conducting operations in Africa mean that the need for strategic and tactical lift and helicopter capability in theatre is of particular importance, and that those are restricting factors in terms of our ability to have sufficient impact in places such as Darfur and the DRC. I hope to discourage him from suggesting that we, with the commitments that our people have at the moment, can provide that capability ourselves, but we will obviously do what we can to encourage others to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister recognise that one of the problems is that the militia groups and the armed forces operating in the eastern DRC are, in effect, funded by illicit mining operations? Huge sums flow tax-free out of the Congo, and then flow back in for the purpose of buying arms that kill and maim people. I realise that this is slightly beyond his remit, but can he speak to trade Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers to see what can be done to close off that flow?

Bob Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no doubt that one of the motives for people to get involved in the area is the exploitation of minerals and other natural resources. We must all do everything that we can to prevent that from happening and to ensure that the regulations make that exploitation—and the humanitarian catastrophe that flows from it—not profitable as it has been in the past. I will do as my hon. Friend asks and see to it that we do all that we can in that regard.

Afghanistan

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet his EU and NATO counterparts to discuss the conflict in Afghanistan.

John Hutton: I regularly discuss Afghanistan with my European Union and NATO counterparts. On 10 June, I shall attend a meeting of nations that are contributing to operations in Regional Command (South). On 11-12 June, I shall attend a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers.

Henry Bellingham: I understand that at the recent NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Poland in February, the Secretary of State said that it was crucial that as many European NATO members as possible sent more helicopters to Afghanistan. He said at the time that he was confident that that would happen. How many extra helicopters have now been sent?

John Hutton: I think that there are only three, from the Czech Republic, which is making available some of its helicopters under the helicopter initiative. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has said, it is important to recognise that we are deploying more helicopters to Afghanistan later this year to support our troops, and that is right and proper. On a wider level it is imperative—as I have made clear many times—that NATO do more in Afghanistan. I was very pleased that at the Strasbourg meeting Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany and Australia—our true friend and ally—said that they would support operations in Afghanistan with more troops. That has to be good news for the success of the operation.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does not the Secretary of State understand the gravity of this singular failure of NATO? This was supposed to be an article 5 operation, and people were supposed to step up to the plate with mutual assistance, but that has not happened. That is the case against the backdrop of the House of Commons never giving a mandate for our commitment in Helmand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) made the announcement in a statement one day, and most of us had never even heard of Helmand. We have had drift on this matter and it is now time that the commitment made by Tony Blair and the present Prime Minister—that we commit our armed forces only after a conscious decision by this House—was respected. That has not happened, and there is no mandate for this operation to go on.

John Hutton: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. NATO needs to do more and we have made that clear. I am glad that NATO is responding to President Obama's request for more military assistance to the Afghan Government, as that is long overdue, but better late than never. Can we do more? Yes, of course we should, and we will continue to argue for that.
	On my hon. Friend's latter point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his views very clear on how we should proceed in the future.

Nicholas Soames: Is it not the case that the vital currency of our reputation has been undermined by the Prime Minister not accepting the recommendation by the Chief of the Defence Staff that 4,000 extra troops should be sent to Helmand if we are to do the job properly? Does that not affect our credibility when dealing with the Americans and other NATO allies?

John Hutton: I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman that our reputation matters a great deal to us, and it is with great reluctance that I contradict what he says. I assure him that there was no suggestion that we send 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The Chief of the Defence Staff—who is my principal military adviser, as he is the Prime Minister's— is content with the decisions that the Prime Minister has made, and we are now busy operationalising that in the most effective way possible.

Denis MacShane: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to read  The New York Times today, but it contains an important article by a distinguished correspondent entitled "U.S. Gives Absolution to its Allies". The article makes the argument that the US no longer wants to open a second front against European allies who are not engaging in fighting and killing, but instead wants a team effort. It is changing the nature of its operations in Afghanistan, not to step up a huge kinetic war, but to find political as much as military solutions, and Britain is playing a leading part in that. Can we therefore have an end to the European bashing and an understanding—as was evident at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—that the US and its European allies are talking and working as one?

John Hutton: The strategy that we are pursuing in Afghanistan is not a purely military one. It is a comprehensive approach that has a necessary military component to it, because there cannot be greater security, and therefore the opportunity for the Afghan Government to deliver to greater effect in Afghanistan, unless there is improved security. As my right hon. Friend has correctly said, that military component is combined with an approach that emphasises the development of civilian capabilities and capacity, too. The Europeans are making a significant contribution to that. My criticism of the NATO effort so far is a matter of record and I do not resile from a word that I have said, but I am glad and pleased that the NATO military effort in Afghanistan has now increased, which I consider to be absolutely essential if we are to achieve the wider goals of peace and security in that troubled country.

Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State list the countries in the European Union that have deployed ground forces to southern Afghanistan?

John Hutton: Yes, I will: Romania, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia and Belgium, and France is flying fast jets in the south of Afghanistan.

Liam Fox: As things stand today, does the Secretary of State believe that British forces in Afghanistan have an adequate number of troops, adequate funding and the right equipment to succeed in the mission that they have been given? In particular, is he happy that when we take territory we can hold it and initiate reconstruction quickly and successfully enough?

John Hutton: I believe that we have sufficient troops; I believe that we have sufficient equipment; and I believe that we have sufficient resources. That is not just my view; it is view of the chiefs of staff.

Liam Fox: A large number of the military seem to take a different view. Compared with this time last year, there has been a 55 per cent. increase in coalition deaths, including those of British soldiers, and a 90 per cent. increase in attacks on the Afghan Government. Since January, there have been more than twice as many insurgent-initiated attacks in Helmand as next door in Kandahar. In the light of a clearly deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan and the challenges in Pakistan, is it not time that we undertook a full and comprehensive review of the strategy we are pursuing with our NATO allies and the regional players to determine a way forward? Do they all understand that failure in Afghanistan would both damage NATO and provide a shot in the arm for every extremist across the globe? Why is NATO not working?

John Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: failure in Afghanistan is not an option. Our military effort in Afghanistan must succeed, as must our wider comprehensive approach in Afghanistan. We regularly review the strategy—the Prime Minister has made that clear—and we published a recent review of it. We remain committed to reviewing constantly the military and the wider civil and political campaigns in which we are involved in Afghanistan, and I take it from the hon. Gentleman's question that he wants significantly to enhance military deployment to Afghanistan.

Training (New Equipment)

David Evennett: What procedures are in place to provide that troops receive training on new equipment before deployment to theatre with such equipment.

Bob Ainsworth: All business cases, including urgent operational requirements, are structured to provide equipment to meet our training needs. However, urgent theatre equipment needs sometimes rightly take priority over training requirements. We have made improvements in providing theatre-standard equipment for pre-deployment training and have always provided in-theatre training where that has not been possible.

David Evennett: I note the Minister's comments, but is he not concerned that the number of cancelled military training exercises has increased since 2005 from 58 in 2005-06 to 80 in 2008-09? Is that not unacceptable, and what more can the Government do to ensure that the training is given before the equipment is used?

Bob Ainsworth: Current operations will always have to be the priority. Given the operations in which people are involved, the structure of our training has changed significantly over the past couple of years. Of course, pre-deployment training takes priority, which sometimes has an impact on other training opportunities. We have to do our best to ensure that we maintain all the skills that are necessary for both other contingent liabilities and the operations in which we are involved in places such as Afghanistan.

Madeleine Moon: What steps are being taken to ensure that those personnel returning from theatre can pass on their up-to-date and latest experience of equipment and counter-insurgency to those who are having pre-deployment training so that the latest information and experiences are passed on to troops before they go into theatre?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend hits on an important point, of which all the services are fully seized: people who are about to be deployed into a changing situation, with changing threats, need to be brought up to date as completely as possible by those with the latest information. We, and the Army, Navy and Air Force, try to ensure that training is structured in such a way that all those lessons are learned to the maximum possible degree.

Peter Viggers: When short-term gaps in equipment emerge, they are met by urgent operational requirements—UORs—which can mean that although equipment is put in place, which is welcome, troops do not have the proper training on working with that equipment. Would not a better long-term plan be a strategic review to assess more accurately equipment needs against operational requirements?

Bob Ainsworth: In an ideal world, we would have a proper full-blown procurement system that would be able, for example, to bring vehicles such as Mastiff into use within the 19-week time that elapsed from its first planning to deployment in theatre. However, that will never be possible. When the nature of threat changes— in Afghanistan, the situation has changed from overwhelmingly a shooting war to one in which the improvised explosive device, or the roadside bomb, became our enemies' tactic of choice—we have to get new equipment into theatre quickly. Of course, we must follow that through with capability so that training on the equipment can take place as quickly as possible thereafter. When lives are at risk, it is essential that theatre needs come first. However, we have improved the way in which we are getting theatre-level equipment into the training establishment, because it is no good deploying equipment if we are not deploying capability, which means people capable of using the equipment with which we have provided them.

Topical Questions

John Barrett: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Hutton: My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, and that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in the military tasks in which they are engaged, either at home or abroad.

John Barrett: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. At a time when many former servicemen and women can find it difficult to settle back into civilian life, and at a time of rising unemployment, what is he doing to ensure that the training that they are given when they are in the forces is transferable to civilian life?

John Hutton: We work very hard, and put in significant effort, to ensure that those who leave the forces get the best opportunity to take up a career in civilian life. We have made new commitments on helping ex-servicemen and women migrate from the military family into the civilian world, and we will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that that happens.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the EU and NATO meeting that he is holding? Will he explain to those at the meeting that the inappropriate weight being placed on UK armed forces, and the fact that those NATO colleagues are not committing personnel or equipment, are unacceptable? We need such personnel and equipment in Helmand province. We should be taking the weight off our personnel and giving our UK armed forces the much needed break that they require.

John Hutton: That is certainly part of our argument. The draw-down from Operation Telic will help to ease the operational stress under which the armed forces have recently been operating. Specifically on Afghanistan, more contributions from more nations would be welcome—I think that there will be more in future months—but the ability to deploy forces without caveats would also be welcome, because those caveats often impede flexibility and the delivery of maximum effect on the ground.

David Heathcoat-Amory: In earlier exchanges about the application of human rights law to the armed forces, the Secretary of State said that international law was fixed and that domestic legislation simply implemented it. However, is he aware that the French Government, with more foresight than us, derogated from articles 5 and 6 of the European convention on human rights precisely because they were afraid of the way in which the terms of those articles would affect their troops on the battlefield? Why did not the British Government show similar foresight by doing that when they passed the Human Rights Act 1998 at the start of their time in government?

John Hutton: The particular case that came before the Court of Appeal, and that was the subject of our earlier exchanges, was not just about the articles that the right hon. Gentleman mentions; it covered article 2 as well, as he will be aware. I was asked to speculate on what we would do if we lost the appeal, and I probably went further than I should have done in speculating on what our response would be. The only way in which I can sensibly answer his question is simply to repeat one fundamental point: we will have to consider the Court of Appeal ruling very carefully indeed. If there were to be an appeal, and that appeal were unsuccessful, the Government would have an obligation to reassess the situation in the round.

Mark Lazarowicz: The deaths of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan have already been raised in questions today, and have certainly caused a lot of concern, not least among the Pakistani community in this country. I am sure that the Government and the allies are doing their best to ensure that civilian casualties are minimised, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the UK and the other NATO forces look at their tactics and their approach, to try to ensure that there are no civilian casualties? When there are such casualties, not only are there terrible consequences for the families involved, but it jeopardises the credibility and standing of the NATO forces in the area.

John Hutton: The whole point of the military deployment in Afghanistan, and the whole point of the British military deployment in particular, is to protect the population from the threat of indiscriminate violence from the insurgency. We take that responsibility very seriously. A significant effort goes into identifying a target, and making sure that there are no civilian casualties. We make every conceivable effort to avoid civilian casualties. The difficulty that our commanders face on the ground is often compounded by the fact that the Taliban show no such respect for human life, and will often launch their attacks against our forces—our young men and women—from behind children, older people and women. That is the reality that our commanders face on the ground, and I can say absolutely confidently that we move heaven and earth to avoid harming members of the local population. That will continue to be our policy.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will be aware that about two thirds of opium production continues to come from Helmand province, despite the presence of British troops there. From that province, there emanates a large supply of heroin, which is then supplied on the streets of Britain. What action are British troops taking to combat that increasing problem? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the matter will be taken very seriously because of the effect that it has on young people in our country today?

John Hutton: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The British armed forces are heavily involved in trying to intercept the flow of money and materials that have their origins in the drugs trade, and that feed and fuel the insurgency. We have undertaken a number of very successful operations—I am happy to provide him with details—in which our forces have made important confiscations and have seized significant drug assets. We also support the local law and order operations of the Afghan security forces. We are making progress, and the governor in Helmand province is making real progress in reducing the total acreage devoted to opium production. We are supporting those efforts, and we need to redouble them if they are to have the effect that the hon. Gentleman and I both want.

Hugh Bayley: The recession means that the Governments of all NATO member states will be scrutinising their public expenditure ever more closely, with the consequence that some, I am sure, will propose cutting defence expenditure. What impact will that have on burden sharing, and what representations is my right hon. Friend making on the North Atlantic Council to make sure that front-line services are protected?

John Hutton: My hon. Friend is right that there is a danger that precisely what he says will happen. Our view is that we should prioritise current operations, and we want our allies to prioritise them, too, particularly their respective deployments to Afghanistan. I am glad to say that many more NATO members are deploying more resources to Afghanistan, despite the current economic difficulties, and despite the undoubted pressure on their national budgets.

David Evennett: Given the number of veterans who are in prison or on the streets, what discussions is the Minister having with his NHS counterparts about discovering cases of combat stress in the veteran community before serious symptoms emerge?

Kevan Jones: The Government produced the command paper last year which includes a host of initiatives to support servicemen and women in service as well as veterans. I have commissioned a piece of work called the welfare pathway which I will announce later this year. Among other things, it looks at work with charities and with other Government Departments. We also support the King's Centre for Military Health Research in assessing the instance of mental illness not only in servicemen and women, but in veterans. We are conducting a study with the Ministry of Justice to ascertain the number of veterans in prison. The Government are committed to ensuring that the fullest support is given not only to our servicemen and women in service, but to veterans.

Bob Spink: Marching in the Castle Point armed forces day celebrations on 27 June this year will be the Gurkhas, the Chelsea pensioners, the Royal Anglian regiment, many local veterans and young people in cadets organisations. They will be showing the role that those people have played in society over the years and the part that they can still play in our community. What message does the Minister have for them?

Kevan Jones: May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his encouragement and involvement in the celebrations in his constituency, which as he said will involve the march-past and support of armed forces day? More than 80 communities throughout the UK are being supported directly by the MOD. In many others, smaller events are taking place. So far, 460 out of 480 councils have agreed to be involved in the raising of the armed forces day flag. May I encourage communities large and small to ensure that they take part in armed forces day on 27 June or in the lead-up to it, to say a big thank you to our servicemen and women and to acknowledge the debt of honour that we owe to veterans?

Mark Lancaster: Ascension Island remains a key strategic asset for the United Kingdom, but its financial future is under threat as a result of the MOD refusing to pay its fair share of costs for running the island. Is it right, for example, that next year the administrator of the island may have to close the island's school because of an internal dispute between Government Departments? Will the Secretary of State look into the matter urgently and write to me outlining the steps that he intends to take to resolve this serious situation?

Bob Ainsworth: I know that the hon. Gentleman has written to the Department about the matter and that he has had a holding answer. We are looking into the issue and we will, of course, reply to him. There is a dispute, and we will write to him as soon as we are able about exactly what we can and cannot do with regard to that situation.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), recently said in a speech that
	"claims of a multi-billion pound funding gap paralysing defence procurement were wrong".
	However, since then we have heard that a number of the Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft will be cancelled, the Soothsayer communications programme will be axed, and Project Eagle will be cancelled, as will the RAF Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. That will surely expose some of our front-line troops on the ground, so how can we take seriously or believe what the hon. Gentleman says?

Quentin Davies: I am beginning to wonder how we can take seriously the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. What he referred to as absolute fact is complete nonsense. The MRA4 contract has not been cancelled and is not going to be cancelled. We are expecting to take delivery of those aircraft starting from the end of the year. The Reaper contract has not been cancelled either.

Mary Creagh: I welcome the announcement this week that the MOD is to review the role of women in the armed forces. If we are to discharge our duties under UN Security Council resolution 1325, which specifically looks at the role of girls and women in armed conflict and the consequences of what happens to them, it is vital that we increase women's participation in our armed forces. Experiences in Kosovo and central Africa show that where women are the victims of sexual violence in post-conflict situations, they will not reveal this to male soldiers.

John Hutton: We are trying to improve the recruitment of women to the armed forces, and we have been successful to some extent. The review to which my hon. Friend referred is a more specific review of the role of women in combat roles in the military. I do not want to say much more about that today, but we will keep the House fully informed of that review's progress.

Ian Taylor: My son is one of the officers fighting alongside brave men in Afghanistan at the moment. One issue that all our soldiers face concerns the porous border with Pakistan. What is the Ministry of Defence doing to assist the Government of Pakistan and their army to try to establish further control through what seem, so far, to be successful activities in the Swat valley?

John Hutton: First, may I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's son? We respect and salute his service in the name of our country. On Pakistan, the hon. Gentleman has again identified an important point. We are providing a range of help and support to Pakistan's security forces, particularly the frontier corps, helping them improve their capabilities and their ability to deal with the serious threat to Pakistan's nascent democracy posed by the Taliban and similar extremists. We are involved in a training role with the Pakistani military, too, and we will continue to extend the hand of friendship to the Pakistani armed forces in their fundamental struggle against the forces of darkness and primitivism.

Richard Ottaway: I am sure that the Secretary of State is concerned as anybody about developments in North Korea, but does he agree that the problem is not just the capacity of the North Koreans, but the possibility that they may seek to export both nuclear and missile technology to third-party states? Apart from obvious conversations with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will he take up the matter at NATO level and report back to the House with his plans?

John Hutton: Yes, I should be happy to do that.

Points of Order

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister quite rightly said that he wants to enhance the role of the House and make it central to our politics. This morning, however, he has been making statements in the media about various initiatives that he wants to take, including the establishment of the national council for democratic renewal. Given that the Prime Minister has found time today to speak to a TV talent show contestant, will he find the time to come to this House to make a statement on the far-reaching proposals that he intends to bring forward?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a similar matter, in the  Financial Times last Friday, there appeared to be a set of detailed announcements about the award of Government contracts under the flexible new deal. Have you had any information from a Minister indicating an intention to tell the House, either in person or by way of a written statement, about the award of contracts totalling billions of pounds? Or are we yet again to see announcements in newspapers before Members are informed?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman can table parliamentary questions and ask questions in the House.

Bob Spink: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have in my constituency about 1,000 veterans and people who are interested in the armed forces. The House authorities inform me that I can send information to them about the Castle Point armed forces day events
	"using stamps and envelopes purchased from the Communications Expenditure".
	They also say:
	"Pre paid envelopes should not be used."
	That restriction seems ridiculous. It imposes extra work and costs on my office and staff and makes no sense at all to my constituents. Will you ask someone to review those rules and bring them up to date?

Mr. Speaker: In the past few days, there have been serious complaints about how we use the resources before us, and the reason for the restrictions on envelopes and the introduction of the communications allowance was that some hon. Members were using massive amounts of envelopes, and it had to be stopped. I know that it may be an intrusion or a difficulty for the staff, but the fact of the matter is that there are resources in the hon. Gentleman's office to use those facilities.

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords]

[Relevant Document: The Fourth Report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, HC 89, on Regional development agencies and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill.]
	 Second Reading

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Every one of us understands the degree of public anger at politics and politicians and the pressing need to reform our democracy, but it is vital that that anger be channelled into practical reforms that reconnect people with their political system and allow citizens to exercise more influence and more control. The Bill is practical and focused, and it takes us a few steps further forward on our journey.
	First, it continues the drive towards stronger local democracy, empowering both local authorities and individuals by implementing the principles set out in the White Paper "Communities in control". Secondly, it promotes economic recovery and encourages future growth and development by implementing the proposals set out in the review of sub-national economic development and regeneration. A healthy and vibrant democracy is the foundation of a secure and prosperous society. In the past decade, local authorities have taken on an increasingly important role in driving change and improving the lives of local people: we have given them increased freedom and flexibility so that they can make the most of their local strength and knowledge and connect with local people.
	It has become clear, particularly in the past few weeks, that many people feel cut off or inhibited from taking part in the democratic process. It is vital that we try to overcome those barriers and to create the thriving, healthy and vibrant local democracy that would give people every possible opportunity to speak up and get involved in their local services. Side by side with the Second Reading of the Bill, we have today published a review of the evidence base, which looks at the various ways we can try to empower people—whether that involves the transfer of assets, participatory budgeting or the right to use petitions. The review reinforces exactly what we are trying to achieve through the Bill.
	The Bill introduces new measures to strengthen local democracy further by, first, giving councils new duties actively to promote democratic engagement and civic participation and, secondly, giving local people stronger rights and more opportunities to have their say, through increased and enhanced scrutiny and—for the first time—through legal rights to get a response to their petitions.
	In these tough economic times, those goals are more important than ever. The goals make everyone feel they can take practical action that will have a direct impact for them, their families and their neighbourhoods. The goals will also help people to shape more effective and responsive public services. That is even more important at the present time.

Alistair Burt: We all understand the desire and need to promote greater involvement, but I am puzzled by the concept of the duty. It implies that something will happen if an authority does not live up to it. What exactly would happen to an authority that was seen to be in breach of its duty? How would such a duty be determined? Would it not be better not to have that concept of duty but to keep the promotion of greater involvement, with which the right hon. Lady would find the House in full agreement?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Getting the balance right between powers and duties always exercises us in local government. It is important that there should be a duty because, unfortunately, although many local authorities are doing excellent work on that agenda, not all of them are. We want to try to bring everyone up to the standard of the best. Embedding the issue in the local performance framework, so that that the comprehensive area assessment will measure and assess how well local authorities are promoting democracy in their areas, will be important in ensuring that the issue becomes part of the normal core business of local authorities, rather than the icing on the cake. How far we go with duties as opposed to powers is always a matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue, because democracy is fundamental.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does my right hon. Friend understand that one of the mistakes we made on this side was to prevent many local authorities from maintaining a committee system? That system was healthy for democracy; it was a form of power sharing that involved all councils of all political parties. When we come to the appropriate stage, will my right hon. Friend accept an amendment that would permit local authorities to have a committee system once more? That system endured and was successful for more than 110 years.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend will table amendments at the appropriate time. I do not accept that simply having a committee system will ensure better local democracy. I have seen many committee systems in which people's service on committees has prevented them from being out and about in the community as front-line champions and local representatives.  [Interruption.] It is clear that my hon. Friend does not agree with me on the issue, and he is perfectly entitled to his view.

Edward Garnier: I am looking at clauses 3 and 4. Could the Secretary of State explain what business it is of a local authority to "promote" matters to do with the criminal justice system? In clause 3, for example, she requires local authorities to promote independent monitoring boards to do with prisons, courts boards and youth offending teams. Clause 4 states:
	"A principal local authority has a duty to promote understanding among local people of...the functions of a lay justice".
	Surely the separation of powers that her Government seem so keen on would contradict what she has put into these provisions.

Hazel Blears: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not recognise that the implications of the criminal justice system have a real impact on local communities. These bodies are not separate entities. To follow through his point, he is saying that the local authority should have nothing to do with the police system or the health system. People live in communities, and all these bodies have an impact on their quality of life. It is very important that local authorities should seek to help to recruit people to become magistrates and school governors—to take on all those civic roles in life. If he feels that these things are entirely separate, independent and not interrelated, he is not living in the kind of community that most of us live in.

David Drew: With regard to a duty, will my right hon. Friend say explicitly that there is a role for parish and town councils? I declare an interest as a continuing town councillor of some 23 years. They are the first level of government, not the lowest level, and they have a key role to play in all manner of different areas. It is important that principal authorities consult them, use them as a layer of democracy, and do not try to shut them out. I hope there will be a provision in the Bill to make that formally the case.

Hazel Blears: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am absolutely committed to ensuring that parish councils, town councils and all these local organisations play a full role in our democracy. I have had several meetings with the National Association of Local Councils; its members are an extremely constructive group of people, and I am keen to involve them at every single level during the passage of this legislation.

Joan Walley: Could my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of whether her broad welcome for parish councils could apply in the urban setting?

Hazel Blears: I am more than happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking. Increasing numbers of town councils, parish councils and neighbourhood councils are being established in urban areas. As we have moved towards the new unitary authorities, which are quite large organisations, it has become very important to get them underpinned by local democratic bodies. I do not see parish councils as simply a matter for rural areas: wherever people live, they should have the right to have local representation in their community and neighbourhood.
	Following up the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the Bill is just one element of a wider Government drive to try to ensure that local people have every opportunity to get involved in local decision making, not merely within their local authorities.

Edward Garnier: We are in danger of having a fairly sterile argument, because the Secretary of State clearly does not understand the point that I made to her. If she thinks that it should be the duty of a local authority
	"to promote understanding among local people of...the functions of a lay justice",
	why should it not promote understanding among local people of the functions of the Church of England or, in her particular area, the Methodist Church? Why does she draw a distinction between what is a proper function of a local authority and all the things that she refers to in the Bill?

Hazel Blears: People who commit offences or get involved with the criminal justice system live in places and communities, they interact with families, and they have an impact on neighbourhoods. That is why it is important to try, for example, to encourage people to get involved in youth referral panels, and it is entirely proper for the local authority to encourage that to happen. Far from my not understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I would say he does not understand how modern communities work in this day and age the length and breadth of this country.
	The progress that we have made in implementing the proposals in "Communities in control" has just been set out in our progress report, which, together with the evidence base, is published to coincide with Second Reading. I have been heartened by the fact that the evaluation of the proposals that we have made so far indicates that we are beginning to make some progress in making people feel more able to influence things that happen in their neighbourhoods.
	The second theme of our Bill is economic development, both promoting recovery in the short term—real help now for communities—and, crucially, promoting growth and prosperity in the longer term. Over the past year we have been working with local government, regional development agencies and local community groups to try to determine the best arrangements for driving economic growth in future and to identify how the relevant powers and responsibilities should be distributed among the local, regional and national levels. The results of our consultations have been largely welcomed and endorsed, and the Bill will now put the arrangements in place.

David Kidney: Alongside the imperative to improve economic performance, should we not give equal weight to social and environmental concerns? Should there not therefore be a much bolder, stronger duty in the Bill relating to sustainable development as a whole, rather than a big assessment of economics and little reference to sustainable development in regional planning?

Hazel Blears: I hope to be able to reassure my hon. Friend, because I know that he is a champion of this issue. The whole purpose of the single integrated regional strategy is to balance economic growth with the environment and social justice. Those are the three pivotal issues that we need to get right in our integrated planning. Something that has not been as well managed as it might have been is the fact that spatial planning has gone in one direction and economic planning has gone in another. Using the same evidence base for both in drawing up the single regional strategy will be a significant improvement. I give him the undertaking that sustainable development is at the heart of the Bill.

Julia Goldsworthy: That being the case, would it not be far more appropriate for the regional development agencies to be overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government rather than the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform?

Hazel Blears: With great respect, I shall make a similar point to the hon. Lady to the one I made to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Increasingly, the way in which services are organised will require more integration at both Whitehall and local level. The mere fact that the RDAs sit in another Government Department should not militate against joint work, integrated services and balancing economic and environmental sustainability. The days when the Department that bodies were in determined the framework within which they operated, to the exclusion of such broader thematic considerations, are long gone—or they ought to be gone, very quickly indeed.

Peter Soulsby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the RDAs are accountable to the communities they serve, and that that is much more important than the Department to which they are responsible?

Hazel Blears: It is important that all our organisations are accountable, and when I come to the single regional strategy, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that the RDAs, working with the leaders' boards and signing off plans jointly, will give us some of that accountability. I would also make the point that in the current recession, the RDAs have played a significant role by acting quickly, nimbly and flexibly to promote jobs, and particularly to help small businesses during this tough economic time. That is an important part of their role.

Peter Kilfoyle: I am intrigued by the fact that, although my right hon. Friend rightly says we ought to encourage greater participation and local democracy, we are now talking about the RDAs. In the case of the Liverpool city region, the RDA is channelling all the European structural funding to the Mersey Partnership, which started off as an unelected, glorified tourism operation and is accountable to nobody. How can we get practical politics with accountability when we are using quangos of one sort or another, at not just regional but local level, to dispose of the funding in a given area?

Hazel Blears: I hope my hon. Friend will see that the proposals in the Bill are designed to address the issue that he raises. The single regional strategy will be a joint document prepared by the local authorities and the RDA, and it will need to be signed off by the leaders' board. In many cases the local authority will be the delivery agent for implementing that strategy, and the RDA funds will therefore be channelled through the local authorities to deliver the priorities that local people say are important to them. I hope that at the end of the debate he will be convinced that those are steps in the direction in which he wishes us to travel.

Joan Walley: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), will the Secretary of State give some indication of whether the Campaign to Protect Rural England could be consulted on sustainable economic development, so that we have safeguards for protecting and enhancing biodiversity and landscape? Will there be scope for the Bill to include something more specific on that?

Hazel Blears: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is an advocate of environmental issues, especially biodiversity. I reassure her that we intend to draw on the knowledge, expertise and experience of organisations such as the CPRE when forming our strategies. I have no doubt that, when the Bill proceeds through Committee, questions will be asked about the next stage, the guidance that we issue and the consultees we draw into our process. We want to ensure that the environment is at the heart of our proposals.

David Taylor: May I press the Secretary of State a little harder on community involvement in the regional strategy? She gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) reassuring answers about community involvement. Indeed, clause 72 provides that a statement on community involvement should be prepared and published. However, can it be right to leave the decision about who should be consulted to the RDAs and the local authority leaders' boards? How can we ensure that those who have economic, social or environmental stakeholding responsibilities are genuinely and actively involved with the communities in which they are rooted? That is a significant concern that people in North-West Leicestershire have about the Bill. They are worried that community involvement is not spelled out, but left to the discretion of unelected bodies, which will perhaps fulfil the responsibility in a rather token way.

Hazel Blears: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and those of other hon. Members to ensure that we maximise community involvement. Hon. Members know that that cause is close to my heart and that I have campaigned on it for many years. I am trying to ensure in the Bill that the elected authorities, which are members of the leaders' boards, take responsibility for that.  [Interruption.] They are elected by people in the community.
	I take the point that the social, economic and environmental partners need to be fully involved, but we have not prescribed that in the Bill because that needs to be flexible. The clause that my hon. Friend highlighted provides for community involvement on a statutory basis. That is a huge step forward; in the past, it was simply taken for granted. If my hon. Friend wants to make that involvement even firmer, I am sure that there will be opportunities to do that during the Bill's passage through the House. However, I give him an undertaking—I have given many undertakings today—that community involvement should be at the heart of the strategy. If it is not, the issues that people feel are a priority for them will not be addressed.

Philip Dunne: I am interested in the Secretary of State's comments about taking cognisance of the desire for RDAs in particular to reflect community interests more. How would she effect that desire when Advantage West Midlands, the RDA in my area, is on the point of cutting substantial funding to each local authority in its area without proper consultation?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman knows that RDAs throughout the country, including in the west midlands, have played a significant role during the economic downturn in doing the opposite of what he claims. They have provided support, particularly for small businesses, through advice, information and deferring tax for more than 100,000 business organisations. They have also played a significant role in bringing inward investment to our regions. Of course, the community needs to be involved in drawing up single strategies, but we should not underestimate the role of the RDAs in providing real help to people and communities now. I know it is the Conservative party's policy to abolish the RDAs, but I think that would be unpopular with businesses that are trying to provide employment opportunities for people in their areas.
	The first clauses introduce a new duty for councils to promote democracy. Many hon. Members have asked me what that means practically. It is a novel duty, which has not been considered previously, but the Bill sets out in some detail what it means. Councils must explain their functions: what they do and how they reach decisions; and how other bodies, such as the police, the health service and the criminal justice system, make decisions. Ordinary people have a legitimate interest in knowing how those organisations, which have a significant influence over their lives, conduct their business, and how they can get involved, influence their decisions and make them more accountable and responsive to them and their community.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in promoting democracy in our areas, it would be useful if local authorities such as Bradford got back to the idea of canvassing to get people on the electoral register, which is a basic ingredient of democracy?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously we have important elections later this week, but if people are not registered to vote in the first place, trying to get them out to vote is very difficult indeed. However, she will know that the Secretary of State for Justice and I are trying to put extra funds into electoral registration and provide a more rigorous performance framework for electoral registration, which will, we hope, maximise an accurate and comprehensive register. It is essential that people are registered to exercise their democratic rights.

Brian Iddon: Now that we have a Youth Parliament, would it not be a good idea to encourage all councils, not just one or two, to have youth councils shadowing the work of the senior council and meeting in the council chambers?

Hazel Blears: That is an excellent idea. I am delighted that we managed, after three or four debates in the House, to establish the principle that the Youth Parliament should be able to sit and hold a debate in this Chamber, despite opposition from some Opposition Members. I am also delighted to tell my hon. Friend that we recently launched a programme to establish at least another 20 youth mayors, with budgets, across the country. We will also launch a programme shortly to allow young people to shadow Ministers and councillors in their areas and give them an understanding of what exactly their work entails.

Andrew MacKinlay: And reducing the voting age?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend will know that the Youth Citizenship Commission is looking at exactly those issues and will come forward with recommendations in due course.
	The new duty to promote democracy means that councils must explain their functions and decision-making processes. The Bill also introduces a duty for local authorities to respond to petitions, which is a fairly straightforward way of trying to ensure that issues that people are concerned about locally are discussed. The review of evidence, which I talked about earlier, also confirms that when petitions are taken seriously and people feel that they will be acted on, they will have a significant influence in getting more people involved.

Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the real problem with councils explaining themselves is the sheer complexity of the environment in which they already operate? It is difficult for those of us who interact daily with councils to understand, but the Bill will make the situation more complicated and more difficult to explain, and therefore less democratic.

Hazel Blears: If someone has a problem with litter and graffiti on their street, the Bill requires the council to respond to their petition. I do not see how that makes the situation any more complex; in fact, I think it makes getting something done about the problem much more simple and straightforward.

Martin Horwood: I agree with the Secretary of State that petitions and large-scale participation by the public are welcome. She must therefore welcome the more than 28,000 submissions to the east of England regional strategy, of which nearly 27,000 turned out to be objections, and the 35,000 submissions to the strategy for the south-west, of which I would guess more than 30,000 will turn out to be objections. Is she satisfied that enough changes will be made, as far as she is able to make them, as a result of those thousands of objections, and that the Bill reflects a move towards more accountability by regional bodies, not less?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman has been an effective advocate in relation to some of the spatial strategies. He will know that we have looked very carefully indeed at the representations and that significant changes have been made as a result. I hope he will give us credit for that. It is important that people take part and feel that some things do change. It is my experience that people do not expect everything to change as a result of their representations, but they want to see that they have made a difference. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly the procedure adopted in the spatial strategies.

Paul Beresford: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Hazel Blears: I am going to make a little progress; otherwise I will take up everybody else's time.
	The best councils already take account of petitions—I think that about a third of councils have a formal scheme in place for doing that—and we now expect all authorities to follow suit. If enough people sign a petition, this will trigger a debate, guaranteeing that elected representatives discuss the issues that are of concern at local level. Amendments in the other place have made the petitions scheme much less prescriptive than was originally proposed, which will help authorities to set the parameters around the petitions duty.
	The Bill also extends the existing duty on local authorities to involve local people to a whole range of other organisations, including Jobcentre Plus, police authorities, the Environment Agency, probation trusts and other providers of services. They, too, will have to involve local people. Eventually, we shall have an integrated system in which involving people is done as a matter of course, rather than being somehow out of the ordinary.

Julia Goldsworthy: Will that duty to participate also extend to partnership organisations, such as local strategic partnerships in which a number of organisations make decisions about public resources, as well as the statutory authorities that the Secretary of State has already mentioned? Such organisations often do not meet in public.

Hazel Blears: All the partnership organisations should certainly be under a responsibility to involve local people. Those organisations are spending public money and our intention is to move towards a system in which community engagement with decision making on the totality of public expenditure by local authorities, the health service and the police is fundamental to ensuring that the best possible decisions are taken.
	The Bill goes on to enable the Secretary of State to fund the National Tenant Voice, which will be a powerful advocate on behalf of tenants. I think that there are about 4 million people in social housing, and they need a strong voice. This measure will ensure that they are heard at the highest level, and that they will be involved in shaping the policy that affects them. It will complement the work of the new Tenant Services Authority.
	I should like to mention an excellent example from my own neighbourhood. An arm's length management organisation called Salix Homes has a scrutiny panel of about 30 local tenants, known as senators. I think that this has been the first scrutiny work of this kind in the country. The panel makes recommendations and its views are fed into the housing association, which makes changes on the basis of what its tenants have said is important. That scrutiny is driving continual improvement and excellent services, and it is really making a difference.
	Clauses 30 and 31 will strengthen overview and scrutiny arrangements in local authorities, making them clearer, easier to understand and more effective and, I hope, making it easier for residents to get involved. I am always conscious of complexity, but if we can make the scrutiny arrangements simpler, people will feel that it is worth while their getting involved and making a difference.
	Councils with responsibilities for local area agreements will have a duty to designate an officer with specific responsibility for scrutiny—many places already do this, but, unfortunately, not everywhere does—so that there is a person who is responsible for ensuring that there is a better way for the public to get involved. Local authorities will also be able to set up joint overview and scrutiny committees. For example, a range of district councils could come together to be more effective. Those committees will have a greater remit, and will be able to review issues affecting a whole range of residents.
	The first half of the Bill finishes with clauses to establish a new, impartial and independent local government boundary commission for England. This was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life to enable the Electoral Commission to concentrate on its core duty of electoral registration, rather than having to deal with boundary issues. I hope that that provision will be welcome.
	Let me turn now to the second half of the Bill, with its emphasis on promoting economic recovery and growth. We all know that national prosperity depends very much on what happens at local and regional level. In the new economy, an ability to have clear vision and leadership in our regions and at sub-regional level will be fundamental to success. It is essential that local and regional leaders put in place the right strategies, and that they have the right powers, frameworks and investment to drive opportunities in the new economy.
	Our review of sub-national economic development and regeneration recognised the importance of local authorities in a significantly different way from what had been the case in the past. That is particularly important in tough economic times, so we need to ensure that the framework and the powers are rightly held at each level of government—local, regional and national.
	The Bill places a duty on local authorities to assess the economic conditions in their area, looking at factors such as employment, jobs, skills, enterprise, the number of start-up businesses in particular areas and so forth. If they have such information through the assessment, they will be much better able to provide the economic leadership that will stimulate and promote growth. Many councils have a really good understanding of their local economy; not all do, however, and we want to bring them all up to the level of the best.
	The next clauses introduce the single and integrated regional strategy that I have talked about for each English region outside London. It involves a much more co-ordinated approach, bringing together issues such as housing, transport, skills and planning that go across local authority areas. If we are to provide the right framework, particularly for inward investment, our pitch to the people who we want to invest has to say that there are good offers around planning and transport that are fundamental to driving economic regeneration.

Martin Horwood: The less integrated approach that we have had to date has taken about five years to move from initial consultations through to draft proposals on changes to the regional strategy in the south-west—and it is still not complete. How long, then, does the Secretary of State think the more integrated version will take?

Hazel Blears: It will be an awful lot faster than the previous process, and I say that to the hon. Gentleman for this reason. In the past, we had spatial strategies that often used a different evidence base from the economic strategies, which meant that there were inherent tensions in the system that pulled against each other rather than pushing us towards a much more integrated approach. The fact that the strategy will need to be signed off by the leaders' board and the regional development agency provides an incentive for them to ensure that everything comes through quickly, while at the same time taking into account the environmental and community issues that my hon. Friends have raised. We will have integrated strategies that will help to drive forward economic development as well.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend include an explicit definition of sustainable development in the Bill? Many definitions are floating around in different legislative measures, but surely this is the Bill in which to lay to rest any uncertainty about the need for all development to be sustainable. Does she agree that we should put that at the heart of the Bill?

Hazel Blears: If development is not sustainable, it will not be the kind of development that will drive economic prosperity or quality of life, which are absolutely at the heart of this Bill. Whether it be housing development, jobs or industry, sustainability has to be built into it from the beginning; that is one of the lessons we have learned in reflecting on the different strategies we developed previously. As I said, they clashed with each other, whereas we are now developing an integrated approach, which I know my hon. Friend feels so strongly about.

David Curry: When someone embarks on a strategy, how do they know whether it is going to be sustainable?

Hazel Blears: We could probably embark on an interesting philosophical discussion and I am always keen to explore these issues with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of experience in this area. There are principles of sustainability that apply to the environment, climate change and creating the kind of community that is not just about building houses, but the schools, transport, shops and facilities that go with them. These principles of sustainable development are now, I think, fairly well established, which means that we should not be creating the kind of communities that we unfortunately saw in the 1960s and 1970s, which were not good places for people to live, work or bring up their families in. The whole point of these strategies is to create sustainable places in which people want to live, work and bring up their families. It is not such an arcane discussion as we might have had a few years ago, because those principles are, as I say, pretty well established now.

Peter Kilfoyle: The Secretary of State is being very patient with us. I have nothing against regional strategies; indeed, quite the reverse, having seen what the other lot did for many years. Having a partnership to decide the regional strategy is one thing, but is it not the case that the regional development agency effectively holds a gun to the elected members' heads simply by virtue of the fact that it controls the funding? The RDA certainly has the upper hand in determining the important outcomes from the strategy.

Hazel Blears: I would say that the position is almost exactly the reverse. Although the regional development agency has the RDA funds, local authorities also hold a huge amount of resource in the form of their normal funding, the working neighbourhoods fund or the future jobs fund, which I announced last week along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It gives local authorities £1 billion with which to create 150,000 jobs over the next two years. Make no mistake: local authorities are not in the weak, supplicant position of simply having to go along with what the RDA says. This has to be a genuine equal partnership, and local authorities are increasingly becoming powerful economic players for their own regions and communities.
	Given the economic assessment, the single strategy and the work of the local authority leaders' boards and RDAs in driving it forward, I believe that something very interesting is emerging. This is not just about economic development at regional level; it is more and more about what happens at sub-regional level when local authorities form groups in order to drive change. Many authorities of all political persuasions are now choosing to enter into multi-area agreements, because they see the importance of collaboration between them on this economic agenda. Ten agreements involving 78 local authorities across the country and covering a quarter of the population have been signed from South Hampshire to South Yorkshire and everywhere in between.

Martin Horwood: Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury are collaborating on a joint core strategy that will implement the regional spatial strategy that we expect to be finalised this year. Should they now stop that process and wait for the new integrated regional strategy? Will they not otherwise be developing the implementation of something that is already out of date?

Hazel Blears: I see no reason for those authorities simply to call a halt to their discussions and plans. It is not beyond the wit of people to adapt to the new statutory framework once it is in place. It would not be sensible for them to throw away all the work that they have already done, much of which can be drawn into the new single integrated strategy. That is a matter for negotiation between the leaders' boards and the RDAs in their areas. I do not want people suddenly to decide, on an arbitrary date, that all their work has been pointless and that they will not do it any more. A great deal of it will have involved gathering evidence and coming up with policies that will be just as relevant in the future as they were in the past.

Peter Luff: Will the Secretary of State give way again?

Hazel Blears: In a moment. I want to finish what I was saying about the multi-area agreements. The fact that 10 have been signed, involving 78 local authorities, a quarter of the population and a number of different parties, suggests that people are seeing significant benefit in greater collaboration between local authorities, and I want to encourage them to do more of that. Many have told us that they want to put MAAs on to a statutory footing so that the authorities have more legal power to make a difference. The Bill makes it possible to set up MAAs on a statutory basis similar to that of the local area agreements, which are now beginning to integrate health, council, police and other services.
	I hope Members agree that this is a coherent piece of architecture. Where statutory processes are operating, the centre will exercise less power and devolve more power to the people in local authorities who we all want to be able to make decisions.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Secretary of State has just described this as a much more coherent arrangement. I am sure that it is from the point of view of those sitting in Whitehall, but how coherent does she think it appears to those who are at the receiving end of public services in local communities? How effective does she think they consider these multi-area agreements to be?

Hazel Blears: That is a fair question. So far the architecture has been designed to achieve system change, and it will not necessarily have an impact on people with specific requirements—for instance, those who want to know how to obtain funding for their local nursery or community allotment. The challenge for all of us, as politicians, is not just to bring about system change—although we must do that: we must make the system work—but to translate that into giving people opportunities to do what they want to do in order to make their communities better places in which to live. The community generally does not need to know the details of the MMA, the LLA and the comprehensive area assessment. That is for us to deal with. The challenge—and I take it as a personal challenge—is how the system can be made simpler and easier for people to handle from the inside. That is why there is a duty to promote democracy and to explain who makes the decisions, where people can have an input and how they can make a difference.

Peter Luff: On a point of detail about the sub-regional consideration of development issues in particular, recommendation 26 of the Business and Enterprise Committee's fourth report of Session 2008-09 stated:
	"The Committee is concerned about the process by which local authorities...can leave EPBs."
	If there is no easier mechanism to withdraw, a disruptive member of an economic prosperity board could cause real difficulty to the EPB. We have not yet had the Government's response to our report. What does the Secretary of State say about the mechanism by which a local authority that no longer wishes to co-operate with an EPB can withdraw?

Hazel Blears: Again, that is a fair question, because the whole purpose of moving to an EPB is that some continuity is provided and people sign up, even though they might be from different political parties, to a set of priorities for that community. Thus, this needs to involve some legal basis, and we need to think carefully about what a notice period might be and how people might withdraw. What we do not want is people in an EPB for six months and then out of it for six months—as has been said, we do not want a hokey-cokey approach. These are very serious matters relating to developing five-year or 10-year strategies on planning and transport—big strategic issues—so people have to be signed up for a reasonable period before they are able to withdraw. However, this is a matter that we will doubtless be able to explore, as was discussed in the report.
	We now have MAAs and we will have EPBs; importantly, the EPBs can be joined up with integrated transport authorities, and there will then be a single body that can take a properly integrated approach both to economic development and to transport.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Andrew MacKinlay: rose—

Hazel Blears: Goodness, I am spoilt for choice. I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Andrew MacKinlay: My right hon. Friend will regret giving way. If she looks at the O fficial R eport tomorrow, she will see that all this about economic prosperity boards tying up with some other bodies is gobbledegook. Most people have had enough of all this. Why can we not cut away this plethora of bodies and focus on democratically elected local authorities? That is why I say to her that this is complete nonsense and that we have had enough; we want to get rid of this plethora of quangos and joint bodies, and all this linking up and partnerships—all these buzzwords. I say take it back.

Hazel Blears: I do not regret giving way, because it always good to have a healthy debate. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that I do not know how much discussion he has with the various bodies in his local community, but the people who run the health service, the police service and the council in my community feel that there is great benefit to be had from working in partnership, from pooling their budgets and from having more joined-up services, and that that provides a better service to local people.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Hazel Blears: No, I am not going to give way.

Edward Garnier: I am not going to ask the same question as the hon. Gentleman.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that whether or not to give way is entirely up to the Minister.

Hazel Blears: Now, I was —[Interruption.] There is lots of democracy in this Chamber; I have been speaking for quite a long time.
	I was just making the point about transport, because it is important. Transport sometimes sits separately from other issues associated with economic development, and if our funding streams and capital allocations are not aligned with the decisions that we need to take to encourage economic development, we do not get the most out of the resource that is available to us. So, again, the approach we are taking is a positive way forward.

Edward Garnier: This is not a humorous matter, although there have been some humorous moments this evening. Before we move on to the final parts 8 and 9 of the Bill, which deal with construction contracts, could the Secretary of State give us a running total of the number of additional bodies, quangos, boards—

Andrew MacKinlay: Partnerships.

Edward Garnier: And partnerships. How many such bodies will this Bill create? How many such bodies will it replace—or will it add to others that currently exist? What is the total public expenditure cost of the Bill?

Hazel Blears: I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be pursuing that question on a regular basis while the Bill is being discussed on the Floor of the House and while it goes through Committee. I tried to make the point as kindly as I could earlier, but if he thinks that the world is still made up of a series of entirely separate, isolated and dislocated public services, he is not in touch with the communities out there. For a young offender who has difficulties in his home life, finds it hard to access training and cannot get an apprenticeship or a job, we need a series of local public services to come together in order to be able to provide the response for that young person in an integrated way—that is the way of the world these days. Hon. Members might wish to go back to the mythical halcyon days when everything was done separately in silos, but they are looking back through rose-tinted glasses. That is not the world of today, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of touch with reality— [ Interruption. ] I have answered him. He may not like my answer, but I have answered him.

Sally Keeble: On the issue of construction contracts, would my right hon. Friend consider giving local authorities powers, when awarding contracts, to take into account their functions under clause 66 of the Bill to promote the economic development and regeneration of their areas, and to consider the desirability of maintaining a diverse range of contractors? In addition to value for money, local authorities should consider local economic circumstances and the position of local building firms, which are suffering severely in this recession. This legislation could help them.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes a thoughtful and practical point. We can be more creative, when it comes to Government and local authority procurement, in looking at the factors that we take into account. We need to look not only at the bottom line, but at the social impact in an area. The evidence base suggests that if money is spent locally in the local community, every £1 spent has £7 worth of economic impact. If it is spent outside the area, the impact is much lower. In these tough economic times, it is very important to have local supply chains that help to create and sustain employment.
	The aspects of this Bill that relate to the construction industry are about better cash flow and trying to ensure that there is an adjudication process for the industry. I think that the Bill will provide practical help for construction companies in the present climate.

Mark Prisk: I welcome the intentions of part 8 of the Bill, but much of the industry is concerned that the payment notice procedure is far too complicated. Will she undertake to look carefully at how the procedure will operate, so that it can be radically simplified and genuinely deliver real help for small businesses? Will she give a commitment to that effect today?

Hazel Blears: That will be the subject of discussion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have provided significant support to small businesses through advice and the option to defer tax and VAT. Already more than 100,000 businesses have benefited from that provision, and we have a proud record of helping business. If there is more that we can do, I am sure that that will be discussed in Committee.

Kelvin Hopkins: On the basis of what my right hon. Friend was saying about ordering locally, will she urge all public authorities, especially those in the home counties area, to order the excellent vans made in Luton?

Hazel Blears: I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to be a champion for Luton and the people who depend for their employment on vans and other products from the area. We must never forget the damaging impact of this recession on people's jobs, and we are determined to try to ensure that we keep people in their jobs as much as we possibly can.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State is glossing over the construction provisions at the end of the Bill, which are being watched carefully by subcontractors who are suffering at the moment. If a customer becomes insolvent, the main contractor can cease paying all the subcontractors immediately, even if those subcontractors have supplied all the materials and work on time and to schedule. That is very unfair, especially in a recession, and the companies are unable to obtain insurance against it happening. The Bill does not deal with that situation, and that puzzles me. Will the Secretary of State look again at the issue? I know that other Departments are involved, but she has received representations from me and my constituents about this issue. What is her present view on it?

Hazel Blears: The provisions in this part of the Bill are primarily about trying to improve cash flow, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the dislocation of the supply chain and the impact that that has particularly on small subcontractors. We want to try to make it as simple as we can—the right hon. Gentleman has made that point—and we want a procedure to resolve disputes properly. I am not in a position today to tell him whether we will be able to expand the scope of these provisions, but I think that it is very important that small businesses in the construction supply chain, in particular, have as much protection as they can.
	The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked local authorities to pay their bills, for example, as quickly as they possibly can. Many of them now have very good payment records. One of the problems is that although they might pay the main contractor very promptly, ensuring that that goes down the supply chain is very important when it can mean the difference between a local company staying in business or not. I am conscious of these issues. I am not glossing over this part of the Bill and I want to see what I can do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Hazel Blears: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who has not spoken.

Dari Taylor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am keen to support the points that are being made. Small building companies are writing to me and they are very anxious. They understand the integrity of part 8 and they are very clear about its potential value, but they have made it clear to me that the form in which it is written is complex and that they would appreciate it greatly if that complexity could be resolved before the Bill becomes law.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. As ever, she is practically focused on doing the things that matter in her constituency and to her local companies. I certainly undertake that, in Committee, we will examine the issue of complexity and making it simple and straightforward. She is so right—we have to keep many of those small building companies in business because they often employ people whose skills are essential to this country. In previous recessions, we lost those skills because we saw such companies go to the wall. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that such companies stay in business and keep employing the hundreds and thousands of local people in our communities who are so important to us.

Joan Walley: On the issue of small businesses and the part of the Bill that deals with construction companies, will my right hon. Friend consider ways in which smaller building companies can still have a part to play? There is a real fear that the joint ventures and the move towards bigger contracts are cutting out local companies from the local economy altogether. There is an urgent need to ensure that we keep that local supply chain.

Hazel Blears: That point is similar to one that was raised earlier. I am very conscious that we should ensure that we have local procurement; it is often good value for money, too.

Sally Keeble: The Bill makes provision for more transparency in the contractual process. Will there be more guidelines, in the Bill or elsewhere, for local authorities on the subcontracting done by the main contractor? Increasingly, large companies are going for local authority contracts but the way in which they then subcontract is opaque and is sometimes not open to local companies. Some extra guidance on that would be important.

Hazel Blears: It might not be a matter for these clauses, but the way in which we carry out our procurement more generally and ensure that it is transparent, open and simple for firms to access is a major priority for us. One thing that this difficult economic period has shown us is that ensuring that people can access the available contracts in a way that is appropriate to them is quite a challenge, not just to local authorities but for Government procurement, too. As a priority, we should look at the NHS and our big Government Departments—really significant economic players—and ensure that the system is as open as it can be to people in small organisations.
	It is appropriate that we have just had that discussion, because the last time the UK experienced a recession, councils were pretty underfunded and were certainly demoralised. Today, I think that local authorities are thriving, innovative and powerful organisations that are well placed to respond to the challenges ahead.

Kelvin Hopkins: During the recession in the 1970s, when I was a member of a local authority, local authorities were encouraged to build tens of thousands—hundreds of thousands—of council houses, which we did. We completely housed all those on the waiting list during that time. Would my right hon. Friend not suggest that that is the way forward, both to house people and to save the construction industry?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend will know that there was £100 million in the Budget to encourage precisely such activity and that we are removing barriers that prevent local authorities from building houses. He will also, I hope, be aware of the £1 billion future jobs fund that I hope will help to employ young people, in particular, in 150,000 jobs over the next two years. I am sure that many of those jobs could be in the kind of work that he has outlined, involving building good-quality, environmentally friendly homes for the people who need them.
	Today, local government is thriving, innovative, powerful, and well placed to respond to the challenges ahead. The Bill is designed to reinforce that position by strengthening local democracy and supporting economic development, which are the two imperatives of our time. I commend the Bill to the House.

Caroline Spelman: I am sure that everyone in the Chamber with an interest in local government will have spent the past few weeks, including the recess, campaigning for the local elections. After knocking on doors daily throughout the expenses furore, I am sure that we are under no illusion that people want our democracy to work better for them, and I was glad that the Secretary of State began by acknowledging that.
	On the face of it, the title of the Bill seems to hold out some promise for us all, but it is a bit misleading, which is just the first of many disappointments. Far from being a local democracy Bill, it is a charter that snatches power away from people. It is about taking power away from locally elected decision makers and giving it to regional quangos, combined authorities and economic prosperity boards—the gobbledegook, to which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has referred, that makes people feel distant from the political process.
	The sheer fact that something as vital as strengthening local democracy has been lumped together with provisions on the construction industry and other economic aims tells us that the Government do not see strengthening local democracy as sufficiently pressing in itself. Instead, local democracy has been tagged on to a series of measures that look like remnants of other Bills that have been scraped off the floor. Why, for example, are we legislating to create a national tenant voice within a few days of the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords coming into operation? Either the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 has been found wanting or this is unnecessary duplication. No wonder my noble Friend Baroness Warsi described the Bill as a "ramshackle" piece of legislation with
	"lots of motherhood and apple pie".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2008; Vol. 706, c. 404.]
	The critique was not confined to the Conservative Benches. Noble Lords from all parties described the Bill as "an eclectic mix", "a bureaucracy Bill" and, at best, a "mixed bag".

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady asked why there should be a voice for tenants in addition to the Tenant Services Authority. The Cave review, which proposed the reform, makes it clear that the tenant voice is a separate function that must be discharged by a body separate from the TSA. Does she therefore agree that there is considerable good sense in the Bill's proposal?

Caroline Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge about local government, but my point concerns the Government's legislative competence. Given that the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 went through both Houses of Parliament, why was the opportunity not taken to legislate on precisely the point in the Cave review to which he has referred?

Peter Luff: In the light of the criticism admirably made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about the complexity of the Bill, my hon. Friend might like to know that my Committee's report on the Bill is the first that has required a glossary at the beginning so that people can find their way through it—I commend the glossary to the House.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for referring hon. Members to where they can find out how to understand the language used in the Bill.
	I have long held a theory that the longer the title of a Bill, the more delphic its content, and this Bill is no different. I say that advisedly as the author of a book snappily titled "Non-food uses of agricultural raw materials: Economics, biotechnology and politics". Needless to say, the book did not find its way on to Richard and Judy's bestseller list.
	To return to the matter in hand, over and over again I found myself writing, "Why do we need to do this?" in the margins beside the clauses of the Bill. So much of the Bill is plain common sense, or is already best practice for some councils. Best practice should be spread by councils sharing and emulating the good ideas that well-run councils introduce, but does it need a change in the law to tell them how to do that? I do not think so. Will more legislation make councils do their jobs better? I doubt it. It will stifle innovation and suppress diversity, and I happen to believe that diversity drives up standards. Diversity is a far better tool for change than the dead hand of the state. The Bill is simply legislation for legislation's sake. By that, I mean that it is unnecessary, and even counter-productive for being so prescriptive.
	I invite hon. Members to admit that half the contents of the Bill are things that most decent local authorities are doing anyway. Why are we using valuable time in the Chamber, in Committee and in the other place debating legislation that dictates when, where and how councils go about promoting democracy? On the evidence of the Bill, I venture to suggest that Ministers should not be giving advice to anyone about how to promote democracy. Why not trust councils, which have to secure their own mandate, to manage their own ways of promoting democracy, and let them be judged by the voters?

David Curry: Does my hon. Friend think that it is a promotion of democracy to seek to bring the Bill out of Committee on 18 June, given that it is unlikely to go into Committee until a week tomorrow?

Caroline Spelman: My right hon. Friend highlights a problem that is part of the general frustration felt by the public, which we parliamentarians share. Through the guillotining and timetabling of Bills, we have seen an awful lot of legislation not scrutinised properly in this place and then seen it prove to be undeliverable or unworkable in practice, so he is absolutely right to point out that the time constraint is likely to cause more problems of that kind. I add to that the fact that 170 amendments were introduced in the House of Lords, so one has to ask oneself how well prepared it was in the first place and how much work hon. Members will have to do on it in this place.
	Similarly, why do measures on petition-handling and involvement in public authority functions need to be prescribed from the centre? Why not let councils get on with it themselves? If we really want a Bill that deals with petitions, let us start by getting our own House in order, literally. The Scottish Parliament really impressed me with the way in which its petitions are used to shape legislation. That contrasts sharply with the way in which petitions seem to have such a limited effect here in Westminster. How many petitions have hon. Members seen disappear into the green baize purse on the back of the Speaker's Chair to which there is never any reply? I certainly find that disempowering, and I am sure that those who sign them do, too, but that is a bigger debate for another day.
	The problem with prescribing processes, such as those for petition-handling by councils, in tiny detail by statute is that one ends up creating an expensive new compliance industry, with town hall officials chasing targets and ticking boxes. The same applies to the requirements for economic assessments in part 4 of the Bill. Is the Secretary of State honestly trying to tell me that she thinks that local authorities do not already carry out local economic assessments? At best, that is a textbook example of what my noble Friend Baroness Warsi described in another place as "prescriptive overdrive". At worst, it is an example of Ministers using legislation to strengthen Whitehall's whip hand over the town hall. I did not hear an answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about what happens when authorities do not carry out the new duties that the Secretary of State has in mind.
	By seeking to codify, monitor and sanction areas of activity where local authorities have been creating successful new ways of doing things, the Government are regressing further and further into defensive, top-down centralising. How telling is it that in its original form, the Bill gave the Secretary of State the power to change any economic assessment with which she disagrees? That gives the lie to the phrase, "Whitehall knows best." How on earth does that stack up with devolving more power to local communities? It does not.

Peter Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady rightly emphasises the prescriptive nature of parts of the Bill. She implies, in her critique, a need for devolution down to a local level. I want to hear what her party proposes in terms of devolving real power down to a local level.

Caroline Spelman: Unless I am very much mistaken, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has serious misgivings about the accretion of power at the regional level to quangos in his area. I can tell him that that would go under a future Conservative Government.
	In large part, this is a Bill about taking power away from communities and their elected representatives. For evidence of that, we need look no further than the way in which it entrenches the role of unelected, unpopular and unaccountable regional government. I do not understand why the Government are so determined to undermine local democracy through their obsession with regionalism. The one region that was given a say on regional government voted by a majority of 80:20 against it, yet it was ignored and regional government has been steamrollered out across the country ever since.
	Regional government is an albatross around the neck of local councils, and it is time that the whole costly and needless project was ditched. Can the Secretary of State understand why those untouchable regional monoliths are so disliked? They are outmoded and unwanted. Until a Bill comes before the House pledging their abolition, they will continue to be the Achilles heel of local government. Lord Judd gave the game away when he said this in another place:
	"I understand the Government's wish not to be too prescriptive and not to undermine autonomy, which they want to see regions exercising."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 2009; Vol. 710, c. 244.]
	There we have it—regional autonomy. That surely explains why, rather than aborting regional government, part 5 transfers planning powers from regional assemblies to regional development agencies. In short, it transfers powers from one unaccountable quango to another.
	I am at a loss to reconcile that with the stated aim of the Bill, which is to empower local government and communities. Regional government has been tried and tested, and it has been found wanting by every reasonable measure. The Bill should abolish regional housing and planning at a stroke. Colleagues will know from their own experience that more often than not, when people have a complaint about the scale and location of new development, the new development originated in the region. With no regard for the local environment, the infrastructure or sustainability, housing targets are forced on communities, leaving them and their elected representatives powerless.
	Is it any wonder that planning has become so controversial and new development is constantly met with such hostility? As the Campaign to Protect Rural England has put it:
	"Some parts of the Bill will result in communities feeling even more confused about, and disengaged by, the planning system."
	There must be a better way to get the new housing that we need.

Julia Goldsworthy: A number of amendments were tabled by the Conservatives in the Lords to withdraw from the regional spatial strategy and to push power and resources down to local authority level. Is the hon. Lady embarrassed that more Liberal Democrats than Conservatives turned out to support those amendments? How will she ensure that there is the same enthusiasm on the Back Benches as she is describing on the Front Bench?

Caroline Spelman: I am rarely embarrassed by Liberal Democrats; usually, the most I feel is sorry for them. The strong proposals that we made in our green paper on the shift of power back to the local level is not matched in any concrete way by anything the Liberal Democrats have proposed to return power to the local level.
	The official Opposition have pledged to abolish regional planning and housing, and instead give communities a real incentive to deliver the right kind of housing in the right places. Ask communities if they would like incremental growth in their towns and villages, and most would welcome it as a way of sustaining local services and delivering homes that their children can afford to buy and accommodation that their elderly can step down to so that they can live near their friends. But force massive new developments on those towns and villages, with no infrastructure and no regard for the character of the neighbourhood, and those communities will resist them at every opportunity. So let us get away from that top-down, centrally determined, regionally imposed approach. That is old politics.
	Let us move from the stick to the carrot and look at what communities can reasonably absorb and what they will benefit from. Then let us give them clear incentives to deliver new housing, such as our proposal for matching council tax proceeds for every new house built for the first six years. That would give councils an immediate 100 per cent. increase in the amount of revenue generated by creating new homes. Responsible local authorities that currently have record housing waiting lists can be trusted to deliver the right homes that we need in the right places.

Kelvin Hopkins: As always, the Conservatives focus on owner-occupation. Last week, however, there was a report that 67 per cent. of young people have almost given up on the prospect of owning their own homes, especially as mortgages will be more restricted in future. Is it not a reality that, for most people, a decent home with a garden and proper bedrooms will mean a local authority home? If we are to house most of our population decently, we will have to recreate the local authority sector as it once was.

Caroline Spelman: I hear the hon. Gentleman, but I have said nothing about tenure, and from evidence we all know that mixing tenure is the right way forward. He spoke with a misty-eyed nostalgia for the 1970s, I think, when the rate of social house building was significantly higher. But how comfortable does he feel about representing a party that for the past 12 years has built social housing at half the rate of the previous Conservative Administration? That point requires some careful thought.
	It is depressing that a Bill with "Local Democracy" in its title contains almost nothing about freeing up and empowering councils. The Government's distrust of democracy is such that the Bill's only gesture towards local involvement is a leaders' board. However, the board will have no right of veto, and, as a former party chairman, I can tell the House that a board's right of veto is often what gives it real teeth.

Dari Taylor: I am listening with great care to the hon. Lady, and I hope that she will reciprocate. She was right to say that the northern region rejected the whole concept of a regional assembly, but she was quite wrong to state that local governments and local councils do not work together. In the sub-region of the Tees, we work together effectively on housing and spatial issues, because the distinctions between Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar and south Cleveland are indecipherable. Joint working by councils is greatly valued, so to knock it or to understate its value is not appropriate.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady perhaps misunderstood me, because at no point did I say that local authorities do not work together; in fact, I encourage them to do so. However, we should not be prescriptive about which local authorities work together. I accept that in the north-east, which is one of the smaller regions, most local authorities feel a sense of identity with the area, but I hate to tell the hon. Lady that some parts of the country feel that they do not fit in very well with the artificial regions that her Government have created.
	If one speaks to voters in Banbury, one finds that they remain completely nonplussed by the suggestion that, according to the Government's artificial regions, they are part of the south-east. They do not feel part of the south-east. Similarly, people in Gloucestershire feel a long way from Cornwall, so we should question the artificiality of the over-prescriptive requirements for local authorities to work in certain regions, and certain regions alone. It is better to allow local authorities to cluster and work together in the groups that they recognise as most practical and effective, and with which voters identify.

Paul Beresford: The previous intervention backs up my hon. Friend's point, because some local authorities have worked together for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. When the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was a union official, keeping a close eye on a local authority with which I had some links, there was close co-operation between four local authorities of a mixed political complexion. If Red Ted Knight—that name might ring a bell among historians—and I could work together successfully in a unit of four, anybody can.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend has real hands-on experience of running a local authority, and there is the proof that it is perfectly possible to work together in groups across the political divide. Indeed, in the west midlands area, to which my constituency belongs, the seven metropolitan authorities have always worked together, whatever the political complexion of their leadership. I am confident that if we allow local authorities to choose the clusters to which they want to belong, they will come up with the right solution.

Hazel Blears: Does the hon. Lady not accept that the Bill is based entirely on the premise that such organisations of local authorities will be voluntary? Every single bit—whether multi-area agreements, economic prosperity boards or integrated authorities—is bottom-up, rather than being imposed from the top. The Bill is about whether people in a local authority want to work with their neighbours in exactly the way described by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford).

Caroline Spelman: I thank the Secretary of State. The point is, however, that the artificial regions created by her Government are fixed.  [Interruption.] They may not be fixed in the Bill, but they are part of what she calls the "architecture" within which local authorities will work. I shall be delighted if she joins my call for the abolition of those artificial regions; that would be popular with the public.
	I move on to the remit of the regional development agencies. The transfer of planning powers is just the latest example of the mission creep that has led to RDAs being diverted from the vital task for which they were originally set up—stimulating business growth. In the depths of a recession, it surely makes no sense to saddle RDAs with regional planning, which is one of the most bureaucratic, time-consuming, controversial and unwieldy responsibilities.
	RDAs should focus on one thing only—getting British business back on its feet. The best way to do that is to refocus them solely on economic development and let councils define how they work and what areas they cover. If the voters do not like it, they can express their view at the ballot box, which would give clarity and accountability. The current role of RDAs goes to the heart of the combined authorities and economic prosperity boards that are dealt with in part 6 of the Bill. So much of the detail is still unclear. Who will be on those bodies? Who will appoint them? When will the bodies come into being and how will they be funded? Critically, how will they work with the RDAs?

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Lady clarify something? She has recommended a purely economic role for the regional development agencies. Is she planning to retain them?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, so I do not blame him for not having read the Conservative party's green paper "Control Shift". Our position is genuinely localist. If the hon. Gentleman's local authority in Cheltenham wanted a development agency, it could have one; it would, however, be accountable to the public for that decision. I encourage his local authority to group together with others to get critical mass. Economies of scale can be gained if local authorities work together in what I would describe as an economic partnership. I heartily commend the green paper to the hon. Gentleman; in fact, I have a copy at my disposal if he feels like briefing himself this evening about a better view of how to work with regional development agencies.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am being goaded by my party's Front Benchers about this business of partnership. My case is this. I do not know whether anyone is aware of where Thurrock is, but it comes under the same region as Norwich and Walsingham—it could be the other side of the moon. Clearly, there needs to be collaboration along the Thames Gateway. About 10 Ministers ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) should have created a region for the north Thames corridor; which would have made economic and planning sense and involved collaboration with local authorities. Instead, we have the nonsense of Thurrock being in the same pot as Norwich and Walsingham, which is crackpot. We want to reduce the number of bodies and maximise collaboration. We want housing where it is necessary, rather than there being bodies discussing housing only to have their plans frustrated by the Department and by the regional bodies, which put 1,000 problems in the way—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, interventions must be brief. I think that he got his point across.

Caroline Spelman: Madam Deputy Speaker, you will agree with me, I think, that this afternoon is turning out to be interesting. I have probably heard more frank speaking from the Government Benches about this legislation than I have about any other Bill on which I have spoken for my party. Perhaps there has been an outbreak of frank political consensus, which would be welcome, on the right way forward, based on common sense. I am encouraged. The Secretary of State was gallant in taking as many interventions as she did; the number of interventions indicates that on both sides of the House we want the system to work better for the people who vote for us and for a political system that should serve them well. I take encouragement from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Thurrock.

Alan Whitehead: I am somewhat puzzled by the distinctions that the hon. Lady is drawing as regards voluntary arrangements. Several local authorities in my area—they are controlled not by one particular party, but by different parties—have signed up to a multi-area agreement on a voluntary basis. That greatly enhances their ability to deal with several issues of mutual interest, which is reflected in the arrangements in the Bill that will allow them to take such issues forward. Are those authorities wrong, or have they got it right in terms of things that they are doing that are in line with the Bill?

Caroline Spelman: If the hon. Gentleman waits for a couple of minutes, I am about to discuss multi-area agreements.
	The principle of authorities joining forces to deliver prosperity is a good one—that is not in dispute—and one that Conservative Members have always promoted, but for it to succeed, it cannot be buried under the morass of unaccountable regional government. These boards have the potential to flourish, but only if they are unfettered by regional boundaries and bureaucracy. It is exactly the same with multi-area agreements, which are mentioned in part 7. Yes, they are a good thing, and yes, councils should be entering into them where appropriate, but does the matter need to be prescribed in legislation? It makes sense for councils to work in that way. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) nod his head a tiny bit in agreement. Will multi-area agreements ever fulfil their potential as drivers for cross-border working while they are in the shade of a regional edifice?
	Having spent some time talking about the local government and economic development aspects of the Bill, I would turn to the construction aspect—if only the Bill had one! People in the construction industry must have thought that they had lost some of the Bill's pages when they first read it—and, goodness me, it is long enough. When profits are in freefall and work has stopped on construction sites up and down the country, the Government have introduced only nit-picking details about contracts. The construction industry clearly feels that the Bill is an opportunity to help it, but where is the ambition and the imagination? Instead of setting out ideas to kick-start regeneration or deliver new infrastructure, the Bill is confined to what I call contractual etiquette. Frankly, the construction industry and the country deserve better.
	The source of my disappointment with the Bill is that it had the potential to breathe fresh life into local democracy. Instead, it is more like the death rattle of a Government who have run out of ideas. It smacks of a Department desperate to be seen to be doing something. Perhaps it is because the community empowerment Bill seems to have been dropped that the Secretary of State feels that the Department has to "make busy".
	To be fair, Ministers have been busy exploring ideas in the White Paper entitled "Communities in control". Two of the most interesting ideas mooted in that document concern making it easier for councillors to vote and encouraging people to turn up at the ballot box. One solution, we are told, is to enable councillors to vote remotely, perhaps—who knows?—from their sofa or from the pub. As for getting people to take part in local elections, there are various exciting options such as free entry to a prize draw if people vote or a free doughnut for every vote cast; the list goes on. What is so telling about the White Paper is the extent to which it completely misdiagnoses why people are so switched off from local government. It is not because councillors cannot be bothered to go the town hall or because voters would rather be doing lottery scratchcards—it is because people see how local government is overruled by the centre at every stage. The Bill should address head on the priorities of communities up and down the country who are crying out for more say over the decisions that affect their neighbourhoods.
	The truth is that the Bill would have carried twice as much weight if it had been half the size and dealt with only two issues—planning and council tax. How is it that we are debating a Bill about local government that ignores the fury about rising council tax? This year, Ministers happily referred to seeing the lowest level of increase for some years; meanwhile, most people were staggered that it went up at all, given that the average council tax bill has more than doubled since 1997. It is a real cause of pain for hard-working families and people on fixed incomes. The Government should have grasped that issue. How about a council tax freeze of the kind that we have offered? How about giving communities the right to block excessive council tax rises through a referendum? That would be local democracy at work.

Graham Stringer: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said, and I agree with her, not my party's Front Benchers, on some things. However, I found her latest statement quite astounding. She had been making the case for local democracy, but then she said quite blatantly, "But we will control the level of taxation." Is it not the case that what will really stimulate local democracy is a direct relationship between local services and the money raised to pay for them, which can be dealt with at the ballot box?

Caroline Spelman: I think that the hon. Gentleman rose to intervene before he heard my last sentence. Putting an end to capping from the centre, but allowing the local population to cap council tax increases through a referendum, if necessary, is genuine local democracy.
	The Government have pushed on regardless and are now gearing up for a revaluation in 2010. We know that because they have just renewed their contract with Rightmove, which means that data on nine out of 10 house sales will be imported to a Government database, ready to be used as a means of driving up council tax even further through revaluation. When will the Government realise that we need to help people by getting the tax burden down?

Nick Raynsford: Does the hon. Lady believe that it is right for all council tax valuations to be based on notional 1991 values? If she does not, when does she believe that it is appropriate for the register to be updated to take account of the change in values since that time? As she will recognise, 1991 was a very long time ago.

Caroline Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about local government, and we have debated revaluation many times. He will know that one purpose for which revaluations are prescribed in legislation is to deal with regional differences in house price increases. The reality of the sad point that we have reached in the housing crisis is that the degree of regional variation is not marked, so the case for a revaluation is not there.
	There is exactly the same problem with business rates. There is something slightly surreal about debating a Bill at a time of economic crisis that has the words "Economic Development" in its title but that does nothing to address business rates. Our country's recovery from recession will be determined by how well our businesses compete with those from overseas. Instead of giving them a helping hand, the Treasury has given them a smack in the teeth by increasing business rates above inflation and pushing ahead with business rate revaluation. Those things are conspiring to undermine businesses at a time when we need to help them. Deferring an above-inflation business rate increase is no panacea, because it will still have to be paid. Anyone running or working in a business whose amount of work is shrinking exists in a world of anxiety, and any small business looking for comfort in the Bill will not find any.
	The situation is similar for port-related businesses. I had to suppress some shock at the difficulty we had in trying to get an amendment about port taxes in order in the other place. Colleagues might imagine that if there is one virtue in such a convoluted Bill title, it is that it provides an opportunity to debate almost anything. However, that does not seem to include port taxes, despite the fact that they clearly come under the aegis of local democracy and play an undeniable role in economic development. Port businesses have had a huge unexpected tax rise, backdated to 2005, at a time when recession is biting. It simply defies belief that the Government will not give any quarter. No impact assessment was done; there was no consultation; and businesses are casually being handed debts that, in many cases, will make them balance-sheet insolvent.
	Those are big, urgent, immediate issues, which are at the front of people's minds. Does the Secretary of State understand how people will look at this Bill? They will read it, listen to the debate and think that politicians are from another planet. How ironic that no more than eight hours after the Prime Minister told Radio 4:
	"Power must be more accountable to the people who elect MPs and councillors",
	we have a Bill that does exactly the opposite. The Prime Minister held forth this morning about listeners feeling powerless and politics not being sufficiently accountable. If the Bill is supposed to be the solution, God help us. Let us face it, people are fed up. They are fed up with the recession and the pain it brings; they are fed up with MPs; and they are fed up with the Government. The Bill should have been a chance to begin to put things right and make politics relevant again. Instead, I fear that it will do the opposite.
	When I meet voters, they are beside themselves with frustration about the imposition of unsustainable numbers of houses on their communities. Mums in the playground are really angry that a mobile phone mast has gone up right next door to the school, despite Government recommendations that it should not. I understand that the silent majority seek a silent revolution. They want politics to change, but, far from delivering that, the Bill serves up more of the same. It has been cobbled together to fill the parliamentary programme and give Ministers more levers to pull. The Bill is about keeping control over councils via the statute book, because the Government cannot do it through the ballot box. People deserve better than that.
	The political landscape has changed beyond recognition since the Bill was in another place. The public's fury over expenses is not only about money, but a reflex against the entire nature of our broken politics—the top-down, centrally imposed decision making and the inflexible, insensitive bureaucracy that bosses people about from day to day. Supporting the Bill would send a clear message that we are not listening to the electorate. Unless we discharge real power, the current animosity between the public and Parliament will simply turn into a long goodbye.
	The Prime Minister got one thing right when he said that recent events had exposed a big need for a real change in our politics, but he got it wrong when he suggested that he and his Government were the right people to deliver it. The Bill makes it abundantly clear that a public hungry for change in politics will get that only through a change of Government.

Graham Stringer: The history of the last 65 years is one of increasing centralisation of democracy in this country, in three phases. After the second world war and until the 1970s, the utilities and health services were taken out of local government hands, in many cases for good reasons. After two world wars and lack of investment, the gas and electricity industries and many hospitals were not in a good state. None the less, services that had been developed locally and were responsive to local electors were nationalised, and eventually, in the next phase, they were privatised.
	Baroness Thatcher started the next phase, which lasted through the 1980s and into the 1990s. It involved more centralisation, but with an explicit and direct hostility towards local democracy. The Conservative party then fundamentally believed that services were better provided by the private sector. Nicholas Ridley believed that councils should meet only once a year to hand out contracts to the private sector to deliver services. If something could not be done by the private sector, quangos were considered better than local democracy.
	The third phase is that of my Government, who have been much gentler with local democracy; the rhetoric has been different. Even so, there has been an increase in centralisation and central missives to local authorities, to the absurd extent that, in one year, the Secretary of State for education sent out 4,000 pages to head teachers alone. That is extraordinary. Quangos have frequently been preferred to local councils because Ministers said that delivery of local services was often patchy. When considering quangos, "patchy" is a description to which one would aspire when assessing some services that they produced.
	Most of the decisions by central Government and by the officials who make recommendations to Ministers have been based on the myth that central Government are more efficient, effective and economical than local government. I am prepared to give way to any Minister or other hon. Member who can provide evidence to show that the delivery of services by central Government is better than by local government. Most local authorities keep within their budgets when most parts of central Government have a poor record of doing so. Indeed, if we assessed the worst local authorities in the 1980s—Hackney and Liverpool are not controversial examples of poor local authorities—against the Home Office, which a previous Home Secretary described as dysfunctional, which would be found to be the better deliverer of services? Would it be the Home Office, which regularly loses my constituents' records and overspends its budget, or the Hackney and Liverpool of the 1980s?
	One can make all sorts of comparisons with quangos that deliver government services and with local authorities that are not doing so well currently, and I will give a couple of examples before getting to the details of the Bill. I am not making party political points, but I doubt whether there was any more profligate or inefficient waste of money under the previous Conservative Government than the Child Support Agency, which has not delivered services. If anything was a greater waste of money, as well as being unfair, it was the poll tax, which we are still paying for in extra VAT. The poll tax was completely unfair and cost us about £20 billion. However, the Learning and Skills Council, a more recent quango set up by my Government that we are part way through investigating in the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills, has let a capital programme get out of hand in a way that I have never witnessed in a local authority.
	The Learning and Skills Council has not only let a capital programme get completely out of hand, but— [ Interruption. ] I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is saying that he has seen some local authority budgets get out of hand, and they have. However, I doubt whether he has seen anything like what the Learning and Skills Council did. Not only did the budget get out of hand, but the Learning and Skills Council changed all the priorities, so that, under a Labour Government, the money went to the wealthiest areas in the country and the poorest areas got very little. In Yorkshire, Bradford got nothing and the adjacent rich Tory areas got a great deal of capital expenditure. Indeed, we can look all around the country for further examples.

Peter Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend has moved on now, but I was quite taken by his reference to the efficiency, or lack of it, of Hackney and Liverpool in the 1980s, which still bore comparison with central Government. He will recall well that councillors were removed from office at that time because of a notional loss of £110,000 due to the late setting of a rate. Can he tell me of any Minister who has been removed from office for the loss of a comparable sum or for any reason whatever?

Graham Stringer: I cannot do that. There is no set of laws or rules that apply to Ministers or civil servants that are equivalent to those that apply to elected councils and local government officers.

Andrew MacKinlay: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the history of local government over the past few years, may I invite him and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to pause and reflect on the fact that under both Prime Minister Blair and the current Prime Minister, we have had a revolving door of Local Government Ministers, particularly Ministers responsible for housing construction? I might have exaggerated when I said earlier that my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) was the Minister about 10 Ministers ago, but there is constant change and no settlement, and people are never properly on board. I predict that by next Tuesday there will be different Ministers responsible for housing and construction again. I am not referring to anybody in particular—they can be good, bad or indifferent—but the Prime Minister keeps changing people. It is ludicrous. There is no settlement and we suffer from that.

Graham Stringer: That takes me away from what I was saying, but it is a substantial point.

Julia Goldsworthy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. I will attempt to bring him back to the direction in which I think he was going. Is this not the critical difference between the ineffectiveness of quangos and that of local authorities: ultimately people have the right to vote out local authorities that are not run in the way that they wish? Is it not disappointing that the opportunity was not taken in the Bill to make the quangos that we need more accountable and to get rid of the ones that we do not need at all?

Graham Stringer: The hon. Lady makes a point that I am coming to in about two minutes. However, to return to the point about wasting money, I have written down about 20 examples, whose costs run into billions of pounds. The grossest one, for which I can find no local government equivalent, is the exams fiasco last year. A process that had previously cost £10 million nationally now cost £610 million and went completely wrong, so that young people taking exams did not know their results and, when they did know them, suspected that they were wrong.
	There is no evidence base for saying that central Government is better than local government, although I also looked at what Ministers have been saying. The most explicit quote that I could find was from my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that local taxing would lead to
	"the worst kind of nimbyism...inequalities and...conservatism".
	I do not agree with her. I believe that local taxing, local democracy and the right to throw the rascals out, as the Americans put it in one presidential election, are absolutely fundamental to what our society should be about.
	Before I move on to the details of the Bill, I want to mention two principles that ought to underlie it, and to point out that the Bill does not live up to the requirement that they involve. Neither principle would be thought strange in most other democracies. One is that democracy and the local taxation of services are related. If someone stands for election, they should say what money they are going to raise, and win or lose the vote on that basis. The second would involve a pretty fundamental change in how we think about things in this country. It is that central Government should justify their spending decisions to local government, rather than the other way around, because the evidence is that local government is better at it.
	I shall turn now to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 covers duties relating to the promotion of democracy—a matter that was also raised in the debate in the other place. If we look at the House of Commons guide to the Bill, we see that the provisions, which will tell people how to become councillors, how to access services and how to send in information, are going to cost local authorities about £22 million. Compared with some of the sums that we are talking about, that is not a great deal of money. It probably equates to a couple of posts per local authority around the country. The provision is completely unnecessary, however. I asked one of the people who works for me to find out on the internet how to become a local councillor and how to get all the necessary information. Within five minutes, the Directgov website had pointed us towards other websites and we had all the information that we needed. As I have said, not a great deal of money is involved, but clause 1 is really unnecessary.
	The point was well made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) as well as by some Labour Members that most local authorities already take petitions. The fact is that everyone, whether they write a letter or send a petition to a local authority, deserves a response and should get one. I very much doubt that we need prescriptive legislation to achieve that. We just need a statement to that effect.
	The biggest issue relating to local democracy in my area in the past 12 months was the referendum on the proposals for a congestion charge in Greater Manchester, which would have created the largest congestion charge zone in the world. However, there were no real powers in place to enable that referendum to be held. In fact, it was held under section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003, and it could have been held under section 170 of the Transport Act 2000. As a result, there were no real rules for holding that referendum, in which more than 1 million people participated.
	Covering such circumstances would have been a more useful purpose for the Bill. I certainly have doubts about referendums, but there is no doubt that the electorate out there like the idea of holding a referendum on certain key issues. The one in the northern region has been mentioned, and there was also the one in Greater Manchester. Both had a higher turnout than the local elections, and we have to respect people's views in this regard. It is within the terms of the Bill's long title for this legislation to become a vehicle for putting regulations in place so we no longer need to hold referendums under strange parts of the Local Government Act. Having to do that in Greater Manchester meant that the so-called returning officer, Sir Neil McIntosh, who was paid £30,000 to do the job, could decide to consult only the promoters of the relevant Bill on what question to put, and did not put into the main question on the referendum paper the most controversial aspect of the proposal—the levying of a congestion charge or a new tax on people. Also, he would not see people such as myself who were opposed to the proposals. I think that that is quite scandalous. More than 2 million people were entitled to vote in that referendum and more than 1 million people did, and we should use this Bill to codify the procedure so that that sort of situation cannot happen again. In fact, the returning officer was so biased that the arrangement actually worked in favour of the no rather than the yes campaign.
	We have already discussed the regional development agencies and I would like to ask Ministers to clarify some issues relating to the north-west and co-operation. I have always made my views on RDAs clear: they should not have been set up and they should be abolished as quickly as possible, because they have no role whatever. It is not a question of businesses liking RDAs, as the Secretary of State suggested. No, they do not like RDAs, but they like the possibility of getting grants from them. So long as the money is not abolished and does not disappear, businesses would be pleased to get rid of the bureaucracy and deal directly with local authorities.
	I would particularly like to ask my Front-Bench colleagues whether they agree with the following statement from Steven Broomhead, the chief executive of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, who said that there was
	"not a shred of evidence that local authorities can deliver economic development on the ground".
	Does anyone in the Chamber agree with that? I think that it is the kind of arrogance that comes with unaccountable quangos; it is not a basis for co-operation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of that statement; I can give her the full reference if she wants it. It remains the case that, sometimes with the encouragement of officials, these quangos see themselves as in competition with local elected councils. They could not be more blatant in seeing themselves as delivering better services than local authorities do.
	As with the delivery of services by central Government, however, the reality is different. Because these quangos and RDAs have no democratic mandate, it is difficult for them—I want to be fair—to take decisions. They reach lowest common denominator decisions, where everything becomes a priority: seaside towns are a priority, as are rural communities, Cumbria and core cities. Until we look at the numbers involved and find out what is being consulted on, it is difficult to establish what exactly is happening. When we try to look at where the money is going, it becomes inexplicable.
	RDAs should be spending money on two main areas: primarily, creating a better economy and more jobs, and supporting regeneration. However, the money does not go to the areas where we would expect the most added value. The centre of Manchester, for example, should be responsible for 40 per cent. of the GVA—gross value added—for the north-west, and the centre of Liverpool for a significant chunk of the funds, yet the money is spread out quite differently with no justification. My solution is for the Government to take decisions. They should inquire whether the money is there for economic development or to alleviate poverty in some way—the two main reasons for spending public money—and explain what is happening, in a way that the RDA, as it runs around in different directions, does not. What is the Bill's response to that problem? It is to consult leaders' panels, but that does not deal with the fundamental democratic deficit. What it does is take the level up and provide some form of fig leaf for the regional development agencies that allows them to carry on, but it does not allow people a say at the ballot box.
	Let me finish my remarks. The Bill is a lost opportunity. I believe that local authorities—they are not perfect, and some are poor—are better than quangos at delivering economic development and other services. Even more fundamental, however, is the fact that local authorities are immediately accountable to the people through the ballot box. One of the aims of the Local Transport Act 2008 was to transfer highways powers to the integrated transport authorities. Combining that with leaders' boards or prosperity boards or whatever they may be called, consisting of indirectly elected people, may well remove not only the highways powers but a series of other powers from people. They will not be able to say, "I do not want those double yellow lines in front of my shops, but I do want investment," because they cannot vote for or against those with whom they must deal.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and a powerful case. Is there not a risk that the establishment of leaders' boards will repeat the mistake made with regard to the regional assemblies? In the south-west at least, there was rarely any kind of contested vote. The proceedings ended up being strongly influenced by officers who spent as much time talking to the Government offices as talking to representatives who had been elected, even in an indirect capacity.

Graham Stringer: That is one possibility. A stronger possibility is that deals will be done without the involvement of the electorate. There is a democratic deficit which the Bill will not solve. The English regions in particular already suffer because they are disadvantaged financially by the Barnett formula. What people really want from the Bill is clear democracy.
	Let me give two examples. People want to be able to go to their local councillor—as people have come to me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament and in my capacity as a councillor—and say "We have bad private landlords and we want you, as a council, to regulate them." It has taken nearly 12 years, under a Labour Government, to create a regulatory scheme. That should not have come near Government: it should have been up to local authorities to alleviate people's problems with bad landlords and bad neighbours. Similarly, people are concerned when their buses do not turn up. We have more powers to deal with that than we used to have, but we are still left with a deregulated bus system.
	Anyone who talks to people in shopping parades or advice bureaux will know that those are two of the immediate problems that regularly arise, and that such people are not particularly interested in finding out how to become a councillor or in the detailed names of the quangos to which the Bill refers. We should be legislating to solve the real problems that I have described.

Julia Goldsworthy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), who made a thoughtful speech. As he said, the Bill provides opportunities; it is just a question of how we make the most of them, given the obvious deficiencies in what we have at present.
	I think there is common ground throughout the House on the rhetoric about devolving responsibilities to the local level and giving people a say, but a real division when it comes to how that is to be delivered and whether the words are backed up by actions. I know that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) likes diversity, but that tells me more about how she voted in "Britain's Got Talent" than about her party's position on the devolution of power. Most of the correspondence arriving in my letter box expresses the opinion that the Conservatives would prevent local authorities from having any say in, for example, the way rubbish is collected. It is obviously difficult for the Conservatives to square providing all this autonomy with reserving the right to lay down the law centrally on issues such as taxation. The council tax freeze is nothing other than a centralised measure.

Caroline Spelman: I feel that I should correct the record. The bin tax is driven by central Government's desire to establish an architecture in which local authorities are cash-strapped and encouraged to buttress the shortfall in their funding. The localist view is that they should be free to decide.

Julia Goldsworthy: I was not aware that the Conservatives were happy for local authorities to press forward with variance in things such as bin collections should they wish to do so—that was not my understanding at all. I thought the hon. Lady was intervening to tell me that she voted for Susan Boyle, so what she said was slightly unexpected.
	The Secretary of State's contribution took me back to when I was first appointed as my party's local government spokesperson, because some of the advice I received then was that it is very easy to get sucked into local government finance, which is very technical, and structures. On the local democracy side of things, I share her honourable intentions in trying to give people a voice and setting up structures that are responsible to the people, but I fear that this Bill has morphed into the architecture for delivering services—I believe those were her words—and there is far more about setting up structures that are there for administrative convenience, rather than for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve.
	It is ironic to be debating this issue in this House, given that the mechanics of making local democracy work are what is happening on the doorsteps all over the country. We are sitting in this air-conditioned bubble talking about the theory and the structures, but what really makes local democracy work is the volunteers who go out to make their case on the doorsteps and to encourage people to turn out. It is also ironic that we are, in theory, debating this from a position of moral strength—we are telling local authorities how they should be doing it—given that we are doing so much at the moment to undermine people's faith in our democratic institutions.
	I am frustrated that we are looking at local democracy in isolation. Surely if we wish to restore people's faith in a process, we have to go through it from top to bottom. That means that we cannot just talk about constitutional reform at one end; we have to talk about how that translates from the grass roots right up to the very top. I am slightly concerned that we are siphoning off this particular aspect. That does not do us any good and does not make the most of the available opportunities.
	The Bill is an opportunity to make sweeping changes to restore accountability and to rebuild confidence from the grass roots up. This is something in which I strongly believe: part of the reason I got involved in politics was the feeling that the community in which I was born and brought up did not have a voice. I felt that if I could play a role in getting its voice heard, in whatever way possible, by taking part in a political process, not only would I enjoy that, but it would have a value and purpose. That was why I supported the Sustainable Communities Bill, both when it was first introduced and later when it was taken on as a private Member's Bill.
	That Bill was all about setting up processes that mean not only that people can participate but that there is an impact on the outcome. What frustrates people, and the reason they do not vote, is not that they do not have opportunities to do so, or that the voting age is not low enough or that the offer of an iPod is not being thrown in; they do not vote because they do not think that voting will have an impact on the outcome. If people feel that something will make a difference, they are more than willing to do it. I have seen so many parish plans whereby the whole community has got together to identify the key issues in making its village more sustainable, and the point at which people have got disillusioned is when they have found out that they can do little to deliver the things that they want.
	The same applies in respect of, for example, consultations. The problem is that participation is now a dirty word, because people think it is used just to pay lip service to a consultative process, rather than to have an impact on the outcome. That is what I found with the Post Office consultation process. People were more than willing to sign petitions, turn up to public meetings, deliver leaflets, put up posters and do whatever they could, but ultimately they were not being consulted on two different options. Instead, they were being told, "This is what we would like to do. You have the opportunity to vent your frustration, but then we are going to do it anyway."

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady has rightly identified a problem with our democracy: people do not feel that they are being given choice. Academic studies suggest that because the parties have narrowed their differences and they all now subscribe to the neo-liberal model, people have lost interest in voting because the choice is not a real one.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and uses another word, "choice", that has been bandied around an awful lot and has perhaps become devalued. People feel that whatever they do has no impact on the outcome. That might involve an issue relating to voting reform or purely just to the way in which our structures are set up, but the frustration goes from top to bottom in respect of how our public services are delivered.
	The hon. Member for Meriden spoke of the different ways in which the Bill has been described. We prefer to call it a compost heap of proposals, with bits and bobs from many different areas. We are not even sure about the nature of the beast that has resulted. The main sources appear to be parts of the community empowerment White Paper and the sub-national review. However, the Bill is frustratingly timid, and instead of empowering people it will only add to the quangocracy that has built up over the past 10 years.
	The key challenge for the Government is how they can strengthen the Bill as it passes through Parliament. There are opportunities to do so, if the Government will only accept them. I hope they will rise to the challenge and engage in a debate on all the amendments that will be tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	I shall give the House a potted history of how we ended up with this Bill. The first part of the Bill derives mainly from the community empowerment White Paper, published in July last year. It was clearly the Secretary of State's baby, and it is frustrating to see how much of what was essentially a best practice manual has ended up in primary legislation, and how much has been booted into the long grass. When the White Paper was announced, the most memorable proposal was that people would be entered into a prize draw to win an iPod if they turned out to vote. The hon. Member for Meriden criticised that suggestion, but it bears a striking similarity to proposals made by the leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Only the other day he said that what we needed to do to re-engage people with Parliament—as opposed to local authorities—was to put parliamentary proceedings on YouTube and to send people text updates on the progress of Bills. I hope that the hon. Lady will lead the way on this Bill and ensure that all those interested are updated on its progress by text. If we have anything like the 170 amendments that were tabled in the Lords, people's phone inboxes will be very full.
	The White Paper was a best practice manual that essentially restated much of what councils do, including participatory budgeting, transferring assets to the community, spending decisions being made by area committees, and the calling in of the decision-making process. For example, in Kingston it requires only the say-so of 100 people to call in any decision made by the council—real evidence of best practice. However, it is not clear why we needed a White Paper or primary legislation. We thought the White Paper would lead to a community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill, but the Government felt that that would be too unwieldy. If this Bill is a compost heap Bill, that would have been a rubbish tip Bill, and that is why we have ended up with this Bill, which retains about half the proposals in the White Paper.
	The other half of the Bill comprises the remnants of a suggested draft Bill which has now been kicked as far as possible into the long grass. In March, a colleague in the other place asked when the Government intended to bring forward the community empowerment Bill. The reply was:
	"Given the scope of this Session's Bill, we have decided not to publish further draft provisions on empowerment for pre-legislative scrutiny during the current Session. We will discuss with key stakeholders how best to take forward any remaining proposals where legislation may be required."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. WA133.]
	The reply also mentioned a communities progress report on the White Paper, although I have not been able to track that down so far. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when he winds up which aspects of that will need primary legislation at a later date, and which will not. I wonder whether the same test should have been applied to some of the proposals in this Bill.
	Given the salami-slicing of those proposals, it is no wonder that what we are left with will not set the world on fire. For example, the first clause states that local authorities have a duty to promote understanding of their functions and democratic arrangements. There is nothing to oppose in that, and the Local Government Association describes it as "business as usual" for councils. There is nothing new in it. However, there were some important omissions from clause 1, which have now been included only because the Liberal Democrats drew attention to them in the Lords—including partnership arrangements and even parish councils. When we are talking about local democracy, it is completely mad to ignore the important first tier of local government, as those councillors probably have the closest connection with their communities. That reveals a mindset that is narrowly focused and silo-based, despite what the Secretary of State said. She said we should not be worried about which Department is responsible for some of the new organisations that are being set up or rearranged, but at the same time she was telling us that we need new structures to manage the arrangements. I do not see how we can have it both ways, and how one can say, "We can have flexibility, but we need this new overarching architecture." Even the first few clauses of the Bill open up the flaw in her argument.
	Petitions are another key aspect of the Bill that leads one to think, "Well, it's all well and good but what are these measures doing in primary legislation?" We are not talking about a couple of clauses—3,000 words and 8 pages of primary legislation cover how councils should respond to petitions. I completely agree that councils need a mechanism for responding to petitions, but they need a mechanism for responding to any means by which members of the community might wish to contact their council.

Daniel Rogerson: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. If I may return her to an earlier comment that she made, is it not the case that many petitions received by local authorities relate to issues over which, although they are consulted on them, they have no direct control? That is one of the key points. Instead, given a Bill with such a title as this one, local authorities ought to be expected to be given greater power to deliver the wishes of people in their community. They could then respond to petitions far more constructively than they can at present.

Julia Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, which draws my attention to a specific example in my constituency. There was a debate about the transfer of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery from the only acute hospital in Cornwall to Derriford. There were real concerns about the impact that that would have and, obviously, there was a debate about safety, and the petition that went to the overview and scrutiny committee contained 30,000 signatures. Of course, the council has an overview and scrutiny committee but does not make any decisions on what happens to that service. As a result, people feel massively frustrated, and not only because the petition was not acknowledged. We need a process for acting on such petitions in a way that will make a difference, rather than simply responding with a cursory acknowledgement.
	Before the Government start putting forward proposals on how local authorities should deal with petitions, they should probably consider not only how the House deals with petitions, whereby they end up in a baize bag at the back of the Speaker's Chair, but how Departments deal with them. I notice that in answer to the questions tabled by my noble Friends, only the Department for International Development, the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Office said that they even knew the number of petitions submitted to them in the previous year. Those that said that they did not know included the Department for Communities and Local Government. Only DFID and DEFRA publicise the petitions that they receive. Basically, once again, local authorities are leading the way while central Government Departments fall behind—yet suddenly the expert on all this is the Department that does not have a policy on how to deal with petitions.
	Although some improvements were made to the Bill in the Lords—we now do not have the lengthy specification of what a valid petition is—there are clearly proposals that should not be before us at all. What strikes me is that this shows the Labour central-controlling tendency that we saw with the whole Damian McBride affair, when No. 10 Downing street attempted to control the left-wing blogosphere. In the same way, Whitehall is trying to— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) says he is very pleased that Mr. McBride can no longer control what goes on in the Labour blogosphere.
	What also surprised me, looking at the progress of the Bill in the Lords, was the lack of enthusiasm among those on the Conservative Benches for tackling the issue. Again, that seems to run counter to the words they use to describe their zeal for local autonomy.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is interesting that it was the Conservatives who abolished the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils and took away the business rate, taking it to the centre. They also sought to undermine and dismantle local authority housing provision and many other things. I do not quite believe that they are really in favour of local democracy.

Julia Goldsworthy: Actions speak louder than words for all parties, which is why I am proud of the Liberal Democrats' track record. The councils that we control are pushing as many decisions as possible down to a local level, including decisions on budgeting and spending.
	It is difficult to see how the Bill's provisions on local democracy will restore people's confidence in politics and politicians. We have a weird but certainly not wonderful rag-bag.
	Parts 4 to 6 of the Bill, which relate to local authority economic assessments, regional strategies and economic prosperity boards, give me grave cause for concern. I do not understand how the Government can claim the proposals are, in any way, shape or form, bottom-up—I was amazed that the Secretary of State used such language to describe them on the Floor of the House. Regional strategies will be established under the Bill by merging regional economic strategies and regional spatial strategies. However, the structure that we already have is too large and ridiculously unwieldy. The problem is not that there are two regional strategies, but that the regional level is completely inappropriate for such decision making. It is worrying that the proposals are hugely dependent on the Secretary of State, given that there will be reserved powers and the Secretary of State will have a role in specifying what goes into the single regional strategy. I worry that there will be more diktat from on high, rather than decision making at even a regional level.
	Many aspects of Government policy have been reviewed in the light of the unexpected economic circumstances that we face, so I cannot for the life of me understand why Ministers refuse to say that we need to review the regional spatial strategy in such circumstances. To make the south-west regional spatial strategy stack up economically, it was based on growth of 3 per cent. a year. That does not reflect reality, and it goes to show that the proposals are completely out of touch with what is happening on the ground, let alone what people want. There is no alternative but to start again by coming forward with a process that is based on local community need, instead of the Secretary of State repeatedly imposing views that bear no relation to that need.

Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, although I am conscious that Front Benchers have absorbed quite a lot of our time. Does she accept that although local authorities were asked to set out the number of houses that they genuinely believed were needed and sustainable, a pencil was put through those figures for the regional spatial strategy and the numbers were doubled or tripled arbitrarily, which shows what is fundamentally wrong with the RSS?

Julia Goldsworthy: Yes. Having attended several Westminster Hall debates on the issue, I could bore for most parts of England about the ineffectiveness of the process. Even the process of deciding where houses are allocated bears no relation to the needs of communities. There is no way of dealing with the needs of more rural areas, where the growth of some villages might increase the sustainability of the community more than in-filling every available space in an urban area. What is even more galling in my constituency is that some of the areas for which thousands of houses are proposed were not even passed though in a car. Given that it is difficult to understand the impact of proposals when policy is set regionally, it is even more difficult to understand how the Secretary of State can increase numbers at the stroke of a pen. It would be preferable to have a radical review, get rid of the existing system, and start with a clean slate. The Bill provides an opportunity to do that, so I hope that we will be able to have a more fundamental debate.
	The proposals on leaders' boards and economic prosperity boards give us an insight into the Government's concept of democratic accountability. The Government's view is that we need to replace the unaccountable, remote and unelected regional assemblies with leaders' boards, which will be not directly accountable, just as far away and not directly elected. Basically, we are to have another top-down arrangement. The set-up will still leave smaller authorities feeling that their voice will not be heard, and we still do not really know quite how the arrangements will fit in with the Regional Select Committees, which are also supposed to provide scrutiny at a regional level.
	Instead of tinkering, and rearranging the deckchairs on a regional policy that is clearly sinking, we need to look much more widely at Government policy. Questions should be posed, asking the regional development agencies to justify their existence. I do not see any reason why a lot of their powers should not be pushed down to a much lower level. I have another example, from the debate in the Lords, of how the Government seem to think that the accountability process works. It just amazed me. Baroness Andrews, who speaks for the Government, used the word "accountability" when justifying why not to push down powers. She said, in response to a question, that a "deliberate decision" was taken to set up leaders' boards and to leave the decision-making powers where they were in order to
	"preserve the current flexibility...in the RDAs' single-funding arrangements, and to keep the direct line of accountability to RDAs for the use of money voted to them by Parliament."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2008; Vol. 706, c. 896.]
	Most people would think that the accountability should flow from the people at the bottom, rather than from the decisions at the top. The way to get better accountability is to do anything possible to get resources and decision making closer to the people affected. Only the fag-end of a Labour Government could come up with such rhetoric in desperation.
	Let me draw on my experiences of the accountability and accessibility of the regional development agencies. I get letters about once a month from my local RDA telling me how difficult its funding situation is, and how it is having to review its programmes because it is not sure that it can deliver everything that it initially thought that it could. When all of Cornwall's MPs wrote to the RDA to say that we were very worried about that, given the impact that it could have on regional funding and big regeneration projects, we did not even get an answer, let alone an offer of a date on which to meet. In terms of having open and accountable organisations, a lot of people think that the current set-up leaves an awful lot to be desired, and we Liberal Democrats will certainly make the most of any opportunity to re-open that debate that is presented by the Bill.
	Exactly the same is true of the economic prosperity boards. Once again, there are the same concerns. Functions currently undertaken by locally accountable bodies are to be transferred to a new quango that individuals and businesses will have to get their heads around. It will not be closer to the people, and, again, there is no guarantee that everybody on the board will be directly elected. The Government should pay heed to the concerns of the CBI, which said that it already finds it very difficult to engage with regional bodies, and was worried about additional responsibilities being transferred to the board.

Daniel Rogerson: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the current level of accountability, but there is also the question of the level of awareness. She mentions the CBI; at least it knows that such bodies exist, and roughly what their functions are. Most of my constituents do not have a clue what many of the organisations are, so to create further bodies with new titles, and new and crucial responsibilities, at a time when constituents want to know that they can go to their elected representatives and ask them to justify spending decisions, is completely ludicrous and will only make the situation worse.

Julia Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have already been inundated with representations from businesses and individuals who have heard a snippet on the national news about a proposal that they think might help them, but who then find it difficult to find out what the initiative is. Once they investigate it, they usually find out that they are not eligible anyway.
	Of course, the economic prosperity boards are useful as forums for debate, and if some local authorities, or groupings of local authorities, wish to participate, as the local government innovation unit pointed out, they will have the opportunity to debate the evolving city regions agenda. If that agenda is about transferring more powers and responsibilities to areas that are economically and geographically coherent, of course it is a good thing, but there needs to be consistency, because there is no Government thought process on what the rural equivalent of a city region is. I represent a series of market towns, and there is more economic coherence among the market towns in Cornwall than there would be in the area covered by the single economic strategy, which would stretch from Swindon to Gloucester and down to the Isles of Scilly. The rigidity of many of the proposals, and the fact that they are compulsory for so many authorities, will be their undoing.

Alan Whitehead: I have a minor, modest intervention to make. Is it not the case that economic prosperity board areas seek not to be defined by city regions? They do not necessarily seek to be defined as large conurbations with a number of satellites around them, either. Instead, they can, on a voluntary basis, involve a number of authorities that wish to work together from an economic development point of view. Indeed, to refer to the hon. Lady's exact point, such authorities may have considerable coherence, even though they are not based on a city region.

Julia Goldsworthy: As I said, the economic prosperity boards could be useful forums for debate, but what worries me, looking at the number of powers that the Secretary of State reserves on the issue, is the extent to which the measures are voluntary. Instead of the Bill setting councils free, a lot of what we see in it looks like a below-the-radar move in favour of unitary authorities across the board. What we should favour is real diversity in local government structures, whether we are talking about the cabinet system, a mixture of unitary authorities or multi-tiered layers of authorities. Instead, we have top-down imposed structures, a one-size-fits-all approach and an approach that seems to want to create more quangos and more bureaucracy for everybody—and all that is being done in the name of local democracy and democratic accountability, whereas what underlies all of it is administrative convenience.
	No consideration is being given to how it all looks to, or how things will work for, the person on the receiving end of the services. If the Government were serious about closing the accountability gap at the regional or any other level, they would have opened up the question of the allocation of resources. So much of the communities empowerment White Paper was about requiring local authorities to push down resources to the community level. There was nothing about the Government being required to push down resources to the local authority level. Let us look at other legislation that has tried to open up that question, such as the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. In that primary legislation, the Government said that local spending reports would be produced so that, for the first time, people would know not just exactly what their council spent, but what all the quangos in their area spent. That has been completely whitewashed, and proposals are being pushed further and further down the line, so that people will still find it difficult to understand what public money is being spent in their area.
	As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley said, we also need a much clearer link between the money that is raised locally and the money that is spent locally. That means a debate about how councils raise money, as well as how they spend it. That means reopening the issue of council tax. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Meriden had to say about revaluation, because my understanding is that the Conservative party would not abolish the council tax. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, we will be left with a Government who are looking either to revalue and continue with the council tax, or to continue with a basis for the valuation of properties that is 30 years out of date. It is just not intellectually coherent to hold that position: one either has to say, "We will support the council tax, and I'm afraid that at some point, that will mean revaluation," or one has to start looking for other systems of local government finance.
	Other questions could have been dealt with in the Bill, such as localising business rates to provide people with a clearer link between the money raised and the money spent locally. There was an opportunity in the Bill to create accountability in areas where there is none, particularly at the regional level, where I am really worried that what we will have will be even more of a dog's breakfast than what we have now. We should have had options that were flexible, and that local authorities could have tailored to their needs. Those are the kind of things that would have helped to restore faith in local democracy. Instead, we have rigid, compulsory requirements. What the Government just do not get is how it all looks from the public's point of view. The Bill should be about engaging people, not "building the right architecture". None of what I have seen bodes well for the Bill, but what is of more concern for Government Members is that I do not think it bodes well for any of their wider plans, or their professed commitment to wider democratic renewal.

Nick Raynsford: May I first draw attention to my interests, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, and to my role as chairman of the Centre for Public Scrutiny? At the outset, I should make it clear that I welcome the Bill. I do not give it an unqualified welcome; indeed, there are some elements of the Bill by which I am not convinced, and there are some omissions from it that I regret. Despite that, the Bill contains a number of measures that will have a significant and positive impact locally, and that is certainly to be welcomed.
	In their promotion of the Bill, the Government highlighted three principal sources: the Cave report of June 2007, which led to the recommendation for a tenant voice; the Councillors Commission of December 2007, which made some interesting proposals on enhancing the role of councillors and encouraging more people to stand as councillors; and the "Communities in control" White Paper of July 2008. But there is one glaring omission—the most important report published in recent years on local government, the Lyons report, published in March 2007 and so far not referred to in this debate.
	The black hole into which the Lyons report has disappeared is wholly unjustified for an extremely thorough and serious review of local government. It is deeply regrettable that it has not been used by the Government as a source for sensible proposals on enhancing local democracy. The Lyons review is full of sensible and practical propositions that ought to be on the agenda. I regret the Government's failure to implement Sir Michael's recommendations, with one exception—the business rate supplement, which is being enacted as part of separate legislation that is currently in the other place. Although there is much in the Bill to be welcomed, there is a wider agenda that needs to be pursued if we are to see effective renewal of local democracy.
	Turning from what is not in the Bill to its contents, part 1, chapter 1 is concerned with the promotion of public understanding of the functions of local authorities, the democratic processes and opportunities for the public to participate, and how that activity links with other local and national organisations. There has been real progress in recent years in securing better joint working between public authorities.
	I look at my own local authority area and I see relations between the police and the local authority on an entirely different basis from what those of 15 years ago. I see specific initiatives, such as the violent and organised crime unit, which is jointly funded by the Metropolitan police and the local authority and which is doing extremely important work tackling some of the most serious challenges to law and order in our community. I look at the work between the local authority and the health commissioners and health providers, which is far more closely related than it was 15 years ago. We see the benefits of better joining up, and that agenda needs to be promoted and taken forward.
	There is a risk, which is not in the Bill but it has been around, and the proposal has been advocated both by those on my party's Front Bench and by the official Opposition—the risk of a proliferation of separate mandates. I am pleased that our Front-Bench team has backed away from the suggestion of having directly elected police commissioners, but I note that the Opposition are still committed to it. That is a recipe for separate mandates with silo mentalities and exactly the opposite of the joining up between the local authority and other public authorities in the area, which is an important part of the agenda set out in the Bill.
	Part 1, chapter 2 deals with petitions, and probably the less said about that, the better. Petitions provide one mechanism for citizens to highlight concerns, but one must question whether 11 clauses are necessary. It looks to me suspiciously like micro-management.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I invite my right hon. Friend to fast-forward to chapter 5, clause 28, on honorary titles? An absurd instrument is being put through the House of Commons that will clutter the statute book. It states that a local authority
	"may spend such reasonable sum as it thinks fit for the purpose of presenting an address or a casket containing an address".
	This is the kind of nonsense that the House of Commons is getting into. We do not need a new statutory provision to provide for a casket. It is absurd. Who is the architect of this? Presumably the Minister or some faceless civil servant, wasting public money putting the clause in. It must mean that all the existing caskets and addresses are illicit—illegal. It is nonsense, isn't it? I have never been a Minister and will never be one, but I would not put such crap in a Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Andrew MacKinlay: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw that—

Andrew MacKinlay: I do. What I meant to say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Raynsford: I do not disagree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has said. However, I think the provision was inserted in the Bill in the other place, so he may have directed his fire at the wrong target.
	Going back to petitions, we must question how it is that legislative space has been provided for a requirement that local authorities make provision for electronic petitions, when no space can apparently be found in the Bill, according to the National Association of Local Councils, for provisions to allow parish and town councils to make payments electronically. If ever there was a case for modernisation, it must surely be to end the archaic requirement that still apparently binds the 8,000 or so parish and town councils to make payments by cheque, each cheque bearing the signature of two signatories.
	That was fine in 1894, when the requirement was introduced. It was probably still fine in 1972, when the legislation was last changed, but it is a bizarre anachronism in 2009. I understand that the Government were intending to revisit this in the promised community empowerment legislation, which was due to appear later this year, but as I understand that that Bill will not now be forthcoming, may I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to accept amendments in Committee to enable parish councils to make payments electronically?

Peter Luff: The right hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically powerful point, but is he aware that with only two weeks in Committee, there will be no time for additions to the Bill? We will be hard pushed to scrutinise the existing provisions, without adding to them.

Nick Raynsford: It has been my experience over quite a few years that the Opposition make a huge fuss at the start of the Committee stage about the inadequate timetable and we then find that we end the Committee stage within the timetable agreed. I will not make any forecasts, but the particular point has merit and is straightforward. I gather the Government were sympathetic to it and intended to include it in another Bill, so I hope that it can be easily drafted, agreed and incorporated into the Bill without taking very much time from other matters.
	Chapter 4 of part 1 deals with the National Tenant Voice. This is an important provision arising from the Cave review. The review led to the establishment of a new regulator for social housing, the Tenant Services Authority, which is now successfully set up, but it is not the same as providing a national voice for tenants, as highlighted by Cave. Cave recommended that the National Consumer Council might perform that role, but following consultation with tenants and existing tenant representative organisations, a clear consensus emerged on the need for an independent body. Clauses 25 and 26 provide for this. I understand that the plan is that the new body will be set up and running by the end of the year, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm at the end of the debate that that timetable will be met.
	On chapter 6, I welcome the overdue amendments to the unduly restrictive rules on politically restricted posts in local government. There is no question but that it is right to maintain the principle of political impartiality among senior officers of local authorities, but the salary-related restrictions were clearly drawing the net far too wide, and it is right that they should be amended.
	Part 2 concerns scrutiny and audit functions. The extension of formal scrutiny structures to local government under the Local Government Act 2000 was an important reform and has led to significant advances in the quality and transparency of decision making in local government. However, it is probably fair to say that the impact of scrutiny across the whole local government family remains patchy. The Government's commitment in the 2008 White Paper to enhancing the powers of scrutiny bodies and raising their visibility was therefore welcome. The relevant clauses in the Bill are rather modest by comparison with those ambitious objectives, but they are nevertheless a helpful step in the right direction.
	Having a designated scrutiny officer in every authority is a step forward, but it will not result in substantial advances in scrutiny if local authorities go no further. All the evidence—the Centre for Public Scrutiny monitors the issue annually—suggests that the resources available to support scrutiny functions remain limited in most authorities. If authorities are to go beyond their current level of scrutiny and ensure that it is more effective in future, the ambitions spelled out in the White Paper to raise the visibility and to enhance the resources available for scrutiny will have to be put into practice. More will be required than just the clauses in the Bill, welcome as they are.
	Time does not permit me to comment on parts 3 to 6 of the Bill, but they establish the local authority boundary commission and set out new powers and responsibilities in respect of economic development and planning, which I broadly welcome.
	Part 7 gives statutory backing to the important concept of multi-area agreements. The aim of MAAs is to achieve better co-ordinated activity between a number of neighbouring authorities. I have taken a close interest in the evolution of MAAs, because of the intrinsic merit in getting authorities to work together across a wider area, and because my constituency includes one of the five Olympic boroughs—Greenwich, Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest—where work is taking place to work up a multi-area agreement. That MAA has the prospect of ensuring significant improvements across all five boroughs in the run-up to, and aftermath of, 2012; of making the most of the historic opportunity to host the Olympic games; and of ensuring that the local community as a whole secures some lasting benefits—one important legacy issue that is sometimes overlooked.
	The five-borough MAA focuses on three themes that encapsulate economic, social and environmental concerns. First, there is employment—ensuring that the substantial opportunities of building the Olympic venues and hosting the 2012 events are taken in order to reduce the unacceptably high levels of unemployment and joblessness in east and south-east London. Secondly, there is housing—ensuring that the serious problems of poor housing, overcrowding and homelessness which have traditionally blighted all five boroughs are addressed more effectively. That goes far further than just the creation of an exemplary Olympic village to house the athletes in 2012; it means providing sustainable communities with homes for sale and rent after the games. Added impetus will be required throughout all five boroughs to tackle the range of housing problems from which they suffer, and I welcome the MAA's co-ordinated approach. The third theme is the public realm—recognising the importance of securing real improvements to key public areas throughout the five boroughs, given that they will be the focus of much international attention in just over three years' time.
	In my constituency, there are the obvious challenges of enhancing the two key town centres of Greenwich and Woolwich and, in particular, of securing an appropriate transformation of Cutty Sark gardens. The gardens are the setting for the historic sailing ship, which is undergoing restoration, and the entry point from the river to the world heritage site and Greenwich park, one of the principal and most attractive Olympic sites. I welcome the Bill's provisions that codify arrangements for multi-area agreements, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact that an MAA can have on Olympic boroughs in east and south-east London.
	Part 8 deals with construction contracts. The provisions are essentially tidying-up measures to improve the provisions that were introduced a decade ago under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. They are none the worse for being tidying-up measures, however, and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was wide of the mark when she described them rather dismissively as simply inappropriate in the current economic circumstances. These matters have been discussed within the construction industry for years; they are important and necessary reforms. I regret the Opposition's churlish view towards them, given that the origin of the provisions, the 1996 Act, was introduced by a Conservative Government, with strong support from the Opposition, who in turn, when they came into government, enacted the regulations that gave effect to the powers under discussion. It was a bipartisan approach to construction industry reform, and it was based on Sir Michael Latham's report, which made some sensible recommendations for ending the unduly adversarial and litigious culture that had historically been a bugbear of the industry.
	The measures that have been introduced so far have had a positive impact, and in the construction industry there are few people who would not agree with that. However, inevitably, the practical experience of the past 10 years shows the need for some fine tuning, and, over the past three years, the industry has discussed changes to the adjudication procedures and payment arrangements to try to achieve those improvements. The relevant clauses in the Bill are the product of compromise and, inevitably, do not please all parties, so we will be, and already have been, deluged with pressure for change from different parts of the construction industry. The contractors regard some of the provisions on payment as unduly prescriptive and bureaucratic; the subcontractors do not think that they go far enough. My judgment is that the measures are broadly right. They are a compromise and represent a consensus, but they seek to build on the successful reform that was introduced a decade ago, and they should help to improve the industry culture even further and ensure that the old adversarial and litigious ways are left behind.
	This is an important Bill that contains a range of useful measures and deserves to progress through the House. I regret some of the omissions, but, for all that, I believe that it will bring significant benefits to several different policy areas, and I am happy to give it my support.

David Curry: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as a columnist for the  Local Government Chronicle.
	It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). He talked about the black hole into which the Lyons report has fallen, but I think that Sir Michael himself has fallen into something fairly akin to a black hole, too, given that he is chairman of the BBC Trust. He has had a number of incarnations, and, no doubt, that is not the final one.
	We lack another report today: the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government has written a rather hard-hitting report on relations between central and local government—more hard-hitting than I expected, quite frankly. It is a pity that we do not have the benefit of the advice of its members today, but there is a direct clash between this debate and a meeting of the Committee. The Government will have been aware of that, and it just shows that although we talk about joined-up government, sometimes very close parts are not joined up, so it is not surprising that the more remote parts are never joined up.
	I want to step back and see, strategically, where the legislation fits with the decade-long struggle by the Government to find good answers to two related questions. First, what institutions and agencies are necessary to deliver growth and meet the needs and aspirations of a growing population at the level below national Government? In what body can we place our confidence to deliver those things—to devise some form of regional architecture, which is the Government's preference? Secondly, what mechanisms will make the institutions on which we decide accountable? It has been a long and troubled journey, and it still has no destination in sight—perhaps because the destination does not exist. Indeed, it may be sensible to think of a different journey or agenda, because we have been going round in circles, and we are nowhere near a sensible safe haven.
	The Bill represents a further attempt to answer those questions, but the Government's answer is wrong for three reasons. The most substantial reason is that, yet again, the Government have succumbed to their obsession with capacity—size matters, and they have to have scale. We saw it with the failed attempt to merge the police forces and with the mergers of the PCTs. Wherever we look, we find that the Government want bigger scale. However, we lose identity, accountability and flexibility through such measures.
	The regional development agencies are to be enlarged with huge new powers, and there will be a vast regional machine, but the irony is that, in a funny old way, the Government have failed their own test. We can argue about whether the old RDAs were good, bad or indifferent—I think that they fall into all three categories—but they were never given one key instrument of economic development, which is skills. Instead, we had the Learning and Skills Council. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), a former leader of Manchester city council, made some remarks about the LSC's expertise in budgetary control, but, given that people wanted a regional structure whose principal target was economic development, it seems ironic that an effective skills base, which every single business tells us every single day is the most important thing, was never part of the agency's remit. The LSC is, of course, disappearing and giving way to a different body, so the relevant organisations will still not be brought together under one roof.
	Accountability through the advisory leaders' board is also wrong. I never thought that I would see a college of cardinals raised from the ranks of local government leaders. I hope that the wonderful people selected to sit and advise have cloaks, hats and a special uniform; at one time, the Leader of the House referred to people running the quangos at regional level as hugely powerful. Such people are too remote from the citizen. The means by which a citizen can register their views—a common theme today—are suffocated by that form of bureaucracy. The leader of Leeds, Wakefield or Bradford council will not be susceptible to the individually expressed views of the citizen however many petitions or texts they receive, because the bureaucratic haze is too impenetrable for the necessary process of give and take.
	The Bill fails to follow the logic of the Government's sub-regional strategy, which involves their broadly sensible steps towards creating city regions. A huge regional machine is being imposed, yet at the same time the Government are discussing the notion of the large city state, which has a lot going for it and is the one sensible thing that they have suggested. Furthermore, an enormous amount has happened without a legal framework to compel people to do what they find easier to do through voluntary agreement.
	The RDAs are a mixed bag. During my ministerial career, I was dealing with City Challenge and the regeneration bodies, and I was always queasy about the intellectual validity of claims about jobs having been safeguarded or created. How on earth would that be judged? We constantly see statistics about virtuous activity. I do not care whether PricewaterhouseCoopers has done a report, because it is almost impossible to apply intellectual rigour to such statistics.
	Some of the RDAs have not been too bad, although they were better at the beginning, when they were sharply focused on economic development. Since then, however, all sorts of peripheral tasks have been imposed on them—renaissance towns and the impedimenta of all sorts of mini-initiatives that have drained away their central role. There is certainly no evidence that the RDAs have narrowed regional economic disparities; in fact, there is significant evidence that such disparities have increased, as was inevitable.
	I see nothing in the proposals that will make the citizen less convinced that planning is a top-down process. I am thinking especially of housing. We can all say sanctimoniously to our hearts' content that we need more houses. However, as we all know, the one thing that unites most of our citizens is their opinion that new houses are not needed in their vicinity. Any plan to build 30-odd houses as an extension to an estate or in a field, no matter how unsightly, is bound to raise protest. The citizen should feel that the process is something other than a top-down one imposed on them. Craven, in my constituency, is part of the Leeds city region structure. As part of that, it accepted a programme that would have meant a relatively modest number of houses being built annually. However, the cumulative total looked big and Craven saw the nearest thing to a citizens' revolt for a long time. The politicians responded to local pressure and backed away from the programme.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that the Bill will push power upwards, not downwards. It will create a huge motor that will take decisions that are crucial to people's lives, and that power will be exercised by a quango—with the ornament of the advisory cardinals who will sit and give their opinions. I see the merit in the local area and multi-area agreements, which I welcome. But however virtuous they may be, we still have to accept that to a significant extent the contracting parties are themselves not directly accountable. We are building structures without direct accountability. We can praise their administrative efficiency and capacity, but we must be careful before we lend ourselves to the notion that they are genuinely accountable.
	The leaders' board—this college of cardinals, this cosy coterie of local authority aldermen—will do nothing to make the citizen believe that their voice has been reinforced. We should bring back the term "alderman" for the people nominated to meet the regional development agency. I pass over the Regional Select Committees, which are largely phantom and certainly fugitive bodies, so ham-fistedly and belatedly, and with such obvious reluctance, were they introduced by the Government.
	The Government will make a great deal of the bells and whistles of empowerment, such as petitions and the like. I say to Front Benchers from my party that I hope that under a future Conservative Government the citizen will not be subject to text messages on the progress of Bills. I do not wish a Government to intrude on my privacy to tell me about the progress of Government Bills, thank you very much. I am reluctant enough to text as it is, and my reluctance will be reinforced if I feel that the Government are to intrude on me by telling me about the progress of Bills, in most of which I will not have a huge residual interest. Those bells and whistles are at the margin. The central point is the accumulation and reinforcement of powers at the RDA level without effective scrutiny.
	We have seen a lot of joint working, but like many colleagues I do not see why it has to have a mandatory, statutory and regulatory framework to work. When people feel the need to, they will work together. The Bill is packed full of things that would be much better left to people's common sense and willingness to work together.
	The economic prosperity boards have a wonderfully Stalinist ring about them—they have overtones of a Soviet plan for tractor widget manufacture in the 1930s. If we called them "economic recovery boards", at least that would admit that we started from a point of recession rather than suggesting that we are building on unparalleled progress in prosperity. However, I am willing to be convinced. If, in Committee, good arguments are made for a statutory framework—and provided that people are to opt into it, rather than being required to become involved—I may be convinced. However, the incubus of the regional framework on top of the sub-regional strategy, to which I am attached, will be stultifying.
	The dilemma at the heart of the Bill has not been mentioned, and it may be a psychological as well as a political dilemma. We all talk about devolution, localism and decentralisation, but we are often not terribly precise about what we mean by those three concepts or what the difference is between them; in fact, there is a significant difference between them. The real issue is where the balance lies between representative and direct democracy. I have heard the Secretary of State say that time has moved on from representative democracy and that we are now into direct democracy. That is a dangerous notion. Putting democracy into the hands of groups of citizens who have no responsibility beyond the subject in which they have passionate interest, who do not have to make the relevant choices and who inevitably become dependent on the Government for the stream of funding that enables them to carry on their activity, would be dangerous indeed. It is essential that we assert the clear primacy of representative institutions if our democracy is to be reinforced.

Graham Stringer: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but is he not in danger of taking the Government's propaganda and rhetoric too seriously? There is no real direct democracy in the Bill; as the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, there is just a bit more centralisation. Is that not the case?

David Curry: It may be. I occasionally make the perhaps naive mistake, after only 22 years in this place, of thinking that when the Secretary of State talks about a problem, she means to do something about it. I heard her say that the time of representative democracy was past, and direct democracy was now the thing of the future. I call for caution before we are seduced by that, because it simply is not the case. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I agreed with almost entirely and very much enjoyed, that we have seen precious little in this regard. Everybody needs to make up their mind what they mean when they talk about localism and decentralisation. What decentralisation usually means is that the Government find a way of giving local government's functions to somebody else.
	This has been a long journey. We had the directly elected assemblies, which were shot down in the north-east, then we had the regional assemblies, which remained significantly toothless and anonymous, and now we have the wonderful notion of the board of leaders. If we draw the conclusion that we are heading towards the wrong destination, perhaps we need to change train. Perhaps we should look at different sorts of structures—the structures of representative democracy—and abandon the search for a regional promised land.
	In the present world, we need to do two things, one of which we all agree on and one of which some of my colleagues are very uncomfortable about. First, we need to respond to the issues that can be dealt with only on an international scale, such as climate change and population movements that may follow it, the migration of economic power to Asia, and competitiveness; we can all list what they are. We saw the G20 began to move towards a G2 of America and China. We have to ask ourselves which forum will be able to represent our interest and the European interest as regards those global issues. Frankly, that means that we will have to shift some competence and power upwards. That may be a difficult lesson to learn, but it is none the less true. If we have to do that, because otherwise we will not have the capacity to make our voices heard, then we need also to push power downwards in the areas where it is practicable to do so and the citizen can really make decisions at the local level.
	The background to that is the self-empowering citizenry. I am not a computer anorak; my children will testify that that statement has the ring of truth to it. Nevertheless, the internet has empowered the citizen and disempowered institutions—the Government are the most important of those—like no other invention since the printing press, and printing was limited to a very small circle until relatively recently in modern times. The internet means that in half a day any one of my constituents can become a bigger expert on a subject—with the exception of two or three subjects that I have spent my lifetime dealing with—than I can ever be. What we might describe as the sacerdotal role of the MP as somebody sent to London because they had access to the information needed to enable them to take decisions that the citizen was not in a position to take has disappeared out of the window. The citizen can take power, mobilise and do all sorts of things that were not possible in the past, while Governments are disempowered. As a Conservative, I am in favour of the disempowerment of Governments, which is a good way forward.

Nick Raynsford: As always, the right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely interesting and provocative speech. He talked earlier about the choice between representative democracy and direct democracy. He made very clear his preference, which I strongly support, for a system of representative democracy. In his latest example, he is essentially saying that representative democracy has had its day because citizens will use the internet to insist on a form of direct democracy. How does he reconcile those two trends and ensure the triumph of representative democracy that we agree on?

David Curry: First, we must, where possible, give competence to the people who are elected, so that the citizen knows that in voting for the council there is a choice of one set of rascals rather than the other set of rascals. If there is a competence there, the citizen is happy to make those choices. Secondly, the citizen will, in the first instance, use the internet as a tool for or against their own council, as we have all seen. We got very large quantities of e-mails about the Gurkhas because of the immediate pressure being put on the person representing those people. At the same time, people can send a fiery cross across the countryside to fight capitalism or mobilise against the G20. If we do not ensure that we safeguard representative democracy, we will allow the technology to become the servant of those who have given up on representative democracy. That is the most important thing.

Hugo Swire: Because there is now a democratic deficit as regards those who are involved in representative democracy, does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of trying to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds, we should concentrate on trying to get those who are currently qualified to vote to engage better with our democratic process?

David Curry: On the whole, I subscribe to that point of view. We see disaffection in all sorts of people. The contrivance of getting people to vote in Tesco, or whatever, has demonstrated that sometimes people's determination not to vote is almost greater than people's determination to vote.
	I gave way twice in the course of my peroration, which was noble beyond the call of duty, so I will now try to perorate towards the end. The Bill will, in effect, spend two weeks in Committee. Having listened to what colleagues have said and read the thing myself, it seems that almost all the amendments could be aimed at deleting significant parts of it. If we did that and left just the bells and whistles, as I have described them, it would probably become an ineffective but entirely harmless Bill, whereas if we leave the bulk of it in place, I fear that it will become yet another oppressive instrument that militates against what we are all trying to do.

Alan Whitehead: I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said about the missing elements in our discussion of the Bill, including Lyons and several factors that go with that. His comments meshed closely with the thoughtful, as always, contribution by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) about point at which we decide where representation should fall in local government and how we marry the notion of participation, or direct government, with representation, which is the way in which participation and its antinomies can be determined. We cannot just have the white noise of participation determining what happens, through the internet or otherwise, without a representative process that sorts out who gets what, where, how and when, and who does the thinking about that.
	Equally, we cannot say that we wish to devolve power right down to the local level—that we will get rid of regional authorities and so on, and that everything will come back to local authorities—while maintaining an undifferentiated form of taxation that increasingly ends up as a flat tax. Without any ability to vary such a tax, particularly locally, it increasingly has to be determined from the centre, which necessitates making up bogus valuations in order to make any sense of how people are taxed in the first place. I understand that the Conservatives said in their green paper on local government that they would devolve power down to local level, and at the same time keep the crude version of that tax in place and freeze it for two years. Under that proposal, no one would have the opportunity to exercise any financial discretion as regards how to go about that devolution and exercise the representative government function locally. There is nothing more centralising than a tax system over which no one has any discretionary control at local level, and in which decisions on how money will be organised locally end up entirely in the hands of central Government. We are not wholly at that point yet, but if we do not do something about the issue over a period of time, we will be.
	We must recognise that if we are to maintain some form of council tax or similar system, it will require modernisation, uprating and revaluation to make it function. If we do not bring that about, we will surely have condemned our local government system. Whichever direction the rhetoric about localisation is pointing, we will in fact have secured a thoroughly centralised system with very little local discretion and variation.

Hugo Swire: In my constituency of East Devon, we have about 4,500 people on the waiting list for housing, yet we have to give about £5.5 million a year from rents to central Government, which is then redistributed nationally. If those rents were given back to East Devon, we could provide the housing that we so desperately need. Surely that would be localism at its best.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps anticipated some of the comments that I was going to make about the level at which various local government services fall, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to. In an ideal world for local government, we would get it right about where services, arrangements and activities fall in the sub-national spectrum.
	It is fair to say that regardless of Government, for many years we in this country have made a real pig's ear of working out where in sub-national government things should be dealt with. The truth of the matter is that local government, as we call it, is not just a number of local authorities, the boundaries of which have been determined by the local government boundary committee or, in the case of county councils, largely by the Plantagenets. Since the county boundaries were put in place, the black death and the industrial revolution have been and gone, and local government has come into its modern form. Aldermen have come and gone, and still we have counties based on the local government boundaries of 1383 or similar.
	The reality of sub-national government and what people want from their local services is that those services work at different levels of sub-national determination. Sometimes they work within the local government boundaries as they are now, and those boundaries themselves appear to be rather centralising in the case of some services. Sometimes what we call local government services fall at neighbourhood level and sometimes into local government areas as we have currently decided them. Sometimes they fall at sub-regional level and sometimes at regional level.
	The issue to consider is not just the level at which services fall but at what point they should be accountable. Should we determine that at each level of sub-national services, there should be complete representative accountability for them? I have personally considered for a long time that a number of services and functions properly fall at regional level. The question is whether we have got the delineation of the regions right. I believe that the regions of England are based on those originally devised by a Conservative Prime Minister to relate to regional development in the European Union, after which they were declared to be "the regions". The idea that democracy might conceivably be based on those regions is perhaps a problem for regional development.

Peter Luff: My understanding, from evidence that my Select Committee received during its consideration of the Bill, is that the regions have their origin in civil defence maps of the second world war. That cannot be the proper basis, particularly in a strange area such as the east, for economic and rent policies in the 21st century.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman's journey of discovery goes back even further in history than my journey of understanding about how the regions of England, as they have been defined for a while, arose. Certainly the regions as we see them now were put into place as a response to what Brussels had to say about regional development in member states. They have solidified into the regions upon which democracy might conceivably be based.
	My point is that whether or not one decides that one would have started out with those regional boundaries, there is a strong case for the functions that fall at regional level—the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed to other functions that increasingly fall above national level, given the problems in the world—to have a democratic mandate related to them. A number of regional quangos have fallen outside the ambit of regional development agencies and the soon to be departed indirect regional assemblies. They could fruitfully be brought within the ambit of a directly elected regional tier of government.
	There are further tiers of government. From a neighbourhood point of view, the district or unitary authority often looks distant, so our ideal is to devolve from that tier of local government to another tier, or to a neighbourhood administration that is appropriate for certain functions.

Hugo Swire: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and we are going through this argument at the moment in my own county of Devon. Among some people there is a desire to have unitary government and others, such as me, desire to retain the two-tier system, which serves us well with enhanced working. Although I agree that some things need to be done at a sub-regional level and others at a supranational level, surely the logical conclusion of what the hon. Gentleman says is that the best local democracy comes from retaining our district councils. They must surely be the most immediately accountable bodies available to local people.

Alan Whitehead: The conclusion that I was going to reach in my description of the journey of sub-national government in this country was to agree substantially with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that there is probably no exactly right formulation. Certainly district authorities perform a good function and provide good services in a number of circumstances.
	I personally consider, certainly as far as the south of England is concerned, that the tier of local government that is potentially substantially redundant, if services fall at the proper level, is county councils. Other than the fact that a lot of people would be very upset for historical reasons, we could quite happily do without that tier in our local government dealings. When considering what should fall at what level of sub-national government, we would not seriously miss many things that have resided at county council level.
	That brings me to some of the purposes of the Bill. I do not want to go through all the clauses because this is a Second Reading debate and we should examine whether the measure merits further consideration. I think that it does, because although it is by no means an overall solution to the problem of representation and where local government falls, it attempts to make clearer some reasonable working mechanisms for how specific local government functions fall, without necessarily leading us down the path of choice. It allows us to consider whether we need a representative level at every stage, and whether devices exist whereby we can ensure accountability, albeit indirect accountability. It also allows us to consider arrangements for local authorities, which are statutorily defined, to work together voluntarily to ensure that the functions that fall beyond them can be tackled and represented adequately.
	A little example that springs to mind is local government working between Southampton, the area that I represent, and South Hampshire. Several clear local government functions go beyond the boundaries of Southampton. Yet, as things stand, we have a choice between their residing with the county council or the city's attempting to lead the functions, with several other authorities, which may be more or less reluctant to have such leadership thrust upon them. Economic development and a range of other matters that relate to the sub-regional economic dimension clearly go beyond the local government boundaries of Southampton. They include transport, planning and housing as well as economic development considerations. Yet if one approached authorities outside Southampton and asked whether they wished to be ruled by Southampton for those functions, they would probably say no.
	A much better way of ensuring that those functions are adequately covered is through co-operation between the authorities. That ensures accountability, and that the functions work at the right level in the sub-region and to the benefit of all the authorities in the area. That is beginning to happen with the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire, which was one of the first seven multiple area agreements to be signed last year. The authorities are of all parties and none—not one is currently a majority Labour authority; some are Conservative, some have no overall control and some are Liberal Democrat—but they increasingly work well together.
	I agree about the Enver Hoxha-ist resonance of "economic prosperity areas"; the best appellation might be the subject of consideration in Committee. However, in practice, authorities that work as I described want a loose framework and arrangement for what they do and an understanding that they are there for the medium and long term—there is no foot-in, foot-out, "There one week, gone the next" attitude. They want a longish-term arrangement in which they can work together; a statutory recognition that they are working together; and the ability to build on that to increase function, finance and resource as the arrangement develops. That is a genuinely important step forward in the Bill. It provides a framework on a voluntary basis—no one has to do it and it does not rely simply on city regions: top-tier and lower-tier authorities can combine and a range of different arrangements can apply. The central arrangement is catching activities that go wider than one local authority.
	The arrangement goes some way towards solving the region, sub-region, local dilemma and how we develop services. It begins to catch services at the right level and make them increasingly accountable. As the idea develops, I look forward to more functions coming under the scope of those arrangements from the top down rather than from the bottom up. However, as one of the Bill's central themes, it has a great deal to commend it. For that reason alone, if not many others, I am happy to support this Second Reading.

Peter Lilley: I draw the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
	It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), and, indeed, a series of deeply thoughtful speeches, all of which expressed some concerns about whether the Bill will remedy the disparity between local authorities' responsibilities and their accountability to the electorate, and whether it will accentuate rather than alleviate that division.
	I begin by considering a narrower issue and by taking it for granted that the Bill's three key objectives—promoting local democracy, encouraging co-operation between local authorities and facilitating regional planning—are a good thing. I want to draw attention to a phenomenon, which, if the measure does not tackle it, could undermine all three objectives. It is the increasing exploitation of a little known loophole, which allows one council to meet its housing targets by building houses in another local authority's area. That threatens the first objective, since local democracy cannot properly operate without local accountability. If one council can meet its Government targets at the expense of the interests of residents in another area, to whom it is not accountable electorally, that is the antithesis of local democracy.
	The loophole undermines the second objective—promoting co-operation through leaders' boards and economic prosperity boards—because it is hard to envisage how local authorities will co-operate if one or more decide that they can meet their goals by invading their neighbours. That is a recipe for lack of co-operation rather than for facilitating it.
	The same is true of facilitating regional planning and meeting housing targets, which are regional planning's principal objective, if, once those targets are sub-aggregated to individual regions, houses are not built in areas where local authorities were told that there was a need and a duty to build them, but in someone else's area—possibly even outside the region.
	Colleagues may not know—I did not until comparatively recently—that it is legally possible for one council to try to meet its housing targets by seeking planning permission to build in another local authority area. They may think that, even if it is legally possible, it does not happen in practice.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Peter Lilley: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman because his council is one of the guilty parties.

Kelvin Hopkins: I understand precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about in our locality. However, would it not be sensible when, for example, a large town needed to expand to accommodate its population, for the land to become part of the expanding authority—for a transfer of territory to take place from one authority to another? That seems the most sensible way forward.

Peter Lilley: That would mean even more ambitious plans to invade and take over local authorities.

Edward Garnier: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's point, even more so now that I have heard what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) has just said. My constituency goes up to the city boundary of Leicester, but Leicester city council would like to expand its authority into the suburban area of my largely rural constituency, in a borough called Oadby and Wigston. The city council does not want the area to build houses in, but it would like to get hold of its council tax base.

Peter Lilley: That would probably add to the incentive. I have enormous admiration for the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), but we need to think hard about the consequences of what he has suggested. If an authority was told by the Government, rightly or wrongly, through their regional planning policy, that it needed to build a certain number of houses in its area and if the neighbouring authority needed to build another number of houses in its area, it would be wrong for the first authority to be able to say, "Well, we'll build that number of houses, but not in our area. We'll build them in someone else's." Wherever the borders ought to lie, such matters should be decided quite separately.
	As will become obvious to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a recent example of the problem is that the local authorities in Luton and South Bedfordshire decided to try to meet their housing targets by making an area in the neighbouring district of North Hertfordshire one of their preferred locations for house building. The area that Luton and South Bedfordshire have chosen was not included in the original Milton Keynes and south midlands spatial strategy, so no one in North Herts was consulted while the strategy was going through. The area in question was not even one of Luton and South Bedfordshire's preferred options when they were considering how to meet that broad strategy, once it had been decided. It was only when it suddenly dawned on local councillors in Luton and South Bedfordshire that there would be some opposition—there is always some opposition—to building where they had originally thought it would be sensible and right to build, and that they could avoid that opposition, in electoral terms, by transferring their ambitions to a neighbouring area, that they went ahead with the proposal.
	Luton and South Bedfordshire have selected the area of Lilley Bottom, as it is known, near the eponymous village of Lilley in my constituency. Not many hon. Members have villages in their constituencies that are named after them, still less parts of their anatomies— or after which they are named—but there we are. The area is a particularly beautiful part of my constituency and probably one of the most attractive valleys in the constituency, which makes it even more abhorrent to those who live there that it has been seized upon in this way. The area provides a vital resource to the inhabitants of Luton, South, who have a beautiful area of countryside on their boundaries, which they greatly want and, by and large, want to keep. Should the plan go ahead, there would be a double loss, for the inhabitants of both North Herts and Luton.
	It is not only that area that is affected, however. There is another area where a neighbouring local authority is planning to build, in St. Albans, in the southern part of my constituency, although that plan has recently been stopped. My point is that although the problem may not be common throughout the country, if we do not stop it, we will open the floodgates. There will not be a council in the country with housing pressures in its area that will not think, "How much more preferable to seek planning permission in another area." I do not know whether there is even any limit on councils choosing areas in entirely different parts of the country. Could the inhabitants of Kent seek to meet their housing targets by building in Northumbria? As the law is currently phrased, I think they could. That is an absurdity. We should take the opportunity provided by this Bill to close that loophole and ensure that local authorities try to meet their targets in their areas and for their constituents, to whom they are responsible.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The problem arises where there is no possibility of accommodating those who need housing within the boundaries of the authority in question, which is certainly the situation in Luton. Perhaps 1,000 more houses might be built in in-fill, but we need much more than that, with 8,500 people on the housing transfer and waiting list. The problem is uncomfortable, but it has arisen from necessity, not perversity.

Peter Lilley: I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman about his own constituency, but his constituents—his councillors—first identified sites in various parts of Luton and neighbouring areas that were sufficient for housing targets. In my view those areas are quite sensible places to build, but it is up to those councillors. It was only when there was a degree of opposition from some locals in those areas that the councillors thought, "Let's put the houses in someone else's area where it doesn't matter if there's opposition, because they can't vote against us as they're not in our constituency." There are plenty of areas in the Milton Keynes-to-Luton region, which is what the target covers, where building could be undertaken, without going into another county.
	There has recently been a welcome High Court decision that, at first sight, has a bearing on the issue. Hertfordshire county council and St. Albans district council took the eastern area regional plan to the High Court and won, which is the first time that a regional housing plan has, to a degree, been overturned by the High Court. The decision affected both the proposal for Dacorum to spread beyond its boundaries into land owned by St. Albans—the land is the other side of the motorway, so most people do not realise that it is owned by St. Albans—and building work in Welwyn and Hatfield. Knowing that I was going to raise the issue today, my local newspaper, the  Herts Advertiser, made the helpful suggestion that we could rely on the court case to achieve what I want to achieve through parliamentary measures. Unfortunately, my understanding is that we cannot do so, although I look forward to a response from the Minister if I am wrong and if the case has indeed solved the problem.
	My understanding is that the court said that the east of England plan was wrong because of a failure to carry out a proper strategic environmental assessment of urbanising the belt between Dacorum, St. Albans and Welwyn and Hatfield, and the fact that they would begin to merge into each other if building took place. The decision was not based on a rejection of the right of one council to build outside its own area. I therefore hope that, in summing up, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Indeed, I would be delighted if I were wrong and if the case means that the threat from Luton and South Bedfordshire in North Hertfordshire has disappeared.
	I hope that the Bill will be amended to close that loophole; otherwise, the Bill's very objectives will be threatened. I am concerned that it has emerged that the Committee stage of the Bill will be so brief as to inhibit the time to amend it appropriately and close that loophole. I know that the Minister cannot give me a commitment today to table specific amendments, but I would ask him to give a commitment in summing up at least to give serious consideration to introducing an appropriate amendment in Committee. Unless he does so speedily, the opportunity for the House to do its job and amend the Bill to improve it will be lost. I hope very much to hear from the Minister at the end of this debate that he will do that.
	I shall briefly make some broader points. The Bill purports to promote local democracy. How does it do that? It does so by telling local authorities what they must do and how they must do it, and then monitoring them and sanctioning them if they do not do it. What is the cost? What are the resources? What is the time frame? How many extra officials will need to be employed to ensure that authorities are meeting the 3,000 words of obligations imposed on them? What resources will be made available from central Government to enable those officials to do those things? If they are already doing them, no extra resources will be required, but then no extra legislation will be needed. The presumption must be that many officials are not doing those things and that extra resources will therefore be required.
	At a time of economic crisis, the one thing we ought not to be doing is adding to the enormous deficit that this country faces, which exceeds the entire budget of the Department, as well as the budgets of the defence system and the education system. I cannot believe that we are going to add to it, albeit in small ways, by imposing extra obligations, which will require extra resources, on local authorities. This is a sign that the Government have no idea of the scale of the crisis that we face, not just this year but for years to come. If we are to bring total public expenditure back into line with the taxable resources of this country, why are they seeking to place on local government additional costly obligations that no one in the Chamber has so far suggested are necessary? Nor have I heard any call from outside the Chamber for these duties to promote this, that and the other.
	The second thing that the Bill does is to promote local government by transferring power away from elected and partly elected bodies. It moves power from regional bodies—which are pretty bad, but at least they contain some indirectly elected members—to leaders' boards. We are not told what the composition of the leaders' boards will be. The presumption is that they will consist of the leaders of the local authorities, although that is not spelled out in the Bill. They could consist of the chief executives of the local authorities—or their wives and girlfriends, or husbands and boyfriends. The composition is not spelled out; we are simply told that a board will be established and that it will be called a leaders' board. One thing that we know is that people will not be directly elected to the leaders' boards. The boards will have a constitution and duties imposed on them by the Government. In practice, they will be supervised and monitored by the Government, and they will be dissolved if the Government do not like them. This seems to be going in exactly the wrong direction.
	I would like a Bill that genuinely lived up to its title, and that promoted local democracy, economic development and the construction of houses in the right places, but I fear this Bill will not do that. Unless it is modified, it will be undermined by the growing exploitation of a loophole that threatens all its key objectives. It promotes additional burdens on local authorities—and, ultimately, on the local taxpayer—for which there is no demand and no need, and it removes power from the people to central Government and to unelected bodies in a wholly undesirable way, for which the House has so far shown no support.

Keith Hill: The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) ended his speech with a number of wide-ranging considerations that were in line with the thoughtful, even philosophical, tone of many of the contributions that we have heard this evening. He began, however, by expressing a number of highly specific and—as he said himself—narrow concerns. In so doing, he has paved the way for the contribution that I wish to make to the debate. I wish to raise a narrow but important issue about part 5 of the Bill, which deals with the duties and powers of county councils in relation to the economic and spatial planning role of the so-called responsible regional authorities—that is to say, the regional development agency and the leaders' boards drawn from local authorities in the region.
	Let me remind the House that under the current legislation—the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—there is a duty on the responsible planning body when drawing up the regional strategy to seek the advice of county councils in two-tier areas, and elsewhere of unitary authorities, national park authorities or the Broads authority. There is a reciprocal duty on those authorities to give advice. Further provisions relate to the key role of upper-tier authorities in drawing up sub-regional plans. Those reciprocal roles and duties will be removed by the Bill, and I think that that is wrong. I wish to argue for the inclusion of those roles and duties in the Bill.
	I ought perhaps to explain my interest in the matter. It so happens that, five years ago, almost to the day, as the nation's then Planning Minister, I had the doubtful pleasure of piloting through this House the final stages of the aforementioned Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. I call it a doubtful pleasure because certain clauses concerning the role of county and unitary councils—the so-called section 4(4) authorities—were the subject of a somewhat acrimonious dispute between this House and the other place. That dispute led to my—I confess it—highly reluctant, even churlish, acceptance of amendments to strengthen the role and duties of the upper-tier authorities. Those amendments went further than I thought strictly necessary at the time, but they were needed to secure closure on the legislation for the benefit of all concerned in the planning system.
	I said at that time that I looked to local government, and to the county councils network in particular, to ensure that the arrangements worked and to engage constructively in the regional planning process. Indeed, I put it on record that if the arrangements that we were agreeing to through those amendments proved unworkable because of a lack of good will from the parties concerned, we would come back and amend the law.
	I raise this point about the debates on the 2004 Act because I now want to put it on record that, despite my earlier scepticism, I believe that the section 4(4) authorities on the whole have made their best efforts to ensure that the current arrangements for regional and sub-regional planning succeed. My scepticism about the intentions of those authorities was misplaced. In other words, I was wrong. It is not often that one hears a politician say that, at least about a policy decision. I am therefore very surprised that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, would remove from primary legislation the regional and sub-regional planning roles of those section 4(4) authorities.

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman might think that this is a rather impertinent intervention. He has said that, as a Minister, he at least thought about the legislation that was being enacted. One problem that concerns me about this Bill and so many others is that Ministers bring them to the House apparently without having thought about their contents or their implications. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on thinking about the Bill with which he was concerned. He might well have changed his mind since; that does not matter—at least he applied his mind to it.

Keith Hill: I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would not for a moment accuse my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench of presenting this Bill without having given it the most serious thought and consideration. I am sure that that applies to all the Ministers we have seen here today, including the Secretary of State, and not least to the Minister for Local Government, who will respond to the debate and to whom I am determined to offer the greatest possible blandishments in the course of my remarks.

Kelvin Hopkins: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could explain further his conversion. The earlier legislation placed a restriction on shire counties, perhaps to prevent urban unitaries from expanding, and he now seems to think that that legislation was right, even though he did not do so at the time. This matter is obviously of concern to me, as I represent an urban unitary authority that wants to expand into a shire county.

Keith Hill: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I have misled him. It was certainly not the purpose of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, so well remembered by the House, to exercise any discrimination or to make a judgment about the relative merits of county councils or unitary authorities. As I shall explain, the changes to the present Bill that I am now proposing are designed to benefit county councils and unitary authorities equally.
	This is an important issue for local government, and I know that the County Councils Network has spelled out its concerns to the Government on more than one occasion. As the House will be aware, the County Councils Network is a cross-party body and its concerns are shared by its membership across all three major parties, so I hope that the Government will give far more weight to its views than they have been prepared to do so far.
	The truth is that the present statutory arrangements have worked pretty well up to now and it makes eminent sense to retain a statutory role for county councils in the two-tier areas. They provide much of the infrastructure needed to implement spatial plans—for example, schools and local transport—and they also have a key role in ensuring coherence with other public sector agencies such as policing and health that are organised on a sub-regional basis.
	Let us be clear that this is not only about appropriate roles, as it is also about resources. In two-tier areas, much of the technical support to regional assemblies on regional planning is provided by county councils, which also have a key responsibility for sub-regional planning. This resource is vital to ensuring sub-regional differentiation within the regional strategy. I put it on the record for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who protested about such phraseology, that what that means is different provision in different parts of the region. These councils also have a vital role in supporting the development of the regional strategy itself. Let us be clear once again that regional teams are not resourced to undertake this work and they would lack the detailed sub-regional and local knowledge to make such planning effective.
	The section 4(4) role is essential in order to retain capacity and expertise in strategic planning, including the research and intelligence functions, which provide a key evidence base for the regional and sub-regional planning process. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government that we are in the paradoxical position whereby the upper-tier authorities want to ensure a continuing and strong statutory foundation for them to undertake work in support of the regional development agencies, while the Government are putting at risk the provision of that resource by removing the existing statutory duties through the Bill. It is a risk. Who can be at all confident that in the absence of a duty written directly into the Bill, these functions will be preserved by local authorities under pressure to cut costs?
	I think I understand what my Front-Bench colleagues will say in defence of the Government's position. I have, of course, read the remarks of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary—both in Committee and on Third Reading in the other place—and I have read the letter sent by the Minister for Local Government to the county councils network management committee on 21 May. In general terms, Ministers have offered the assurance that these roles and duties will be set out in guidance and regulation. Indeed, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary—an excellent Minister, by the way—went so far as to say that the counties will have a number of "clear statutory roles". Those roles are arguably—one would have to see the detail—close to the status quo. If that is the case, let me say to my right hon. Friends: why go through the time-consuming trouble of laying separate regulations before the House? Why not restore directly in the Bill the roles and duties set out in the 2004 Act, which I do not believe would be a contentious proposal?
	It may be that the reluctance to include these detailed provisions on the face of the Bill is defended in the name of local democracy. In other words, it may be argued that the regional leaders' boards should be allowed to draw up their own schemes, but what if such a scheme omitted a proper role for the upper-tier authorities? That would not be very democratic, would it? Indeed, would it not be likely to attract the centralising intervention of the Secretary of State in order to ensure appropriate roles and duties for these authorities? If such roles and duties are to be anticipated—or, indeed, in the words of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, to enjoy statutory status—why not save a lot of trouble, why not spare the county councils the uncertainty and why not restore these roles and duties directly in the Bill? The relegation of the county and unitary councils' role to as yet unspecified regulations and advice notes seems to me to be both pointless and harmful.
	Now the Minister for Local Government knows that my position is not a veiled attack on the need for regional planning of the economy, housing, transport and the environment—I leave that to the Conservative Opposition, whose policies are in my view a prescription for nimbyism, and I believe that there would be only a minimal level of house building under a Conservative Administration. On the contrary, I want to see strong regional and sub-regional planning, owned by as many as possible of the key players. I thus conclude by asking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to consider having further discussions with the County Councils Network with a view to rethinking this part of the Bill.

Paul Beresford: I just wish that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) had stopped a little earlier, as all my friends in my county and district councils would have been very pleased with much of what he had to say. I hope that his speech will elicit a positive response from those sitting a few Benches in front of him.
	This Second Reading debate has been quite curious. The debate has been pretty severely crippled by comments on the Bill's inadequacy and questions about why it should be here—I exempt, of course, the Secretary of State. Much of the debate has been on what could and should have been, but is not, in the Bill.
	I thought that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), particularly what he said at the beginning and end of his speech, were most apposite. He pointed out that the Select Committee, of which I am a member, has just produced a report. It is interesting to think of the Government ploughing the Bill through—to the detriment, I believe, of local government—while answering the Select Committee's recommendations for local government to have more powers devolved down to it. His last point, which was interesting and intriguing, was that the Committee stage would be very much shorter if a lot of the irrelevant stuff had been taken out of the Bill and if the Bill had been pared down to two or three of the Government's most important points. On that basis, the Committee stage might be dealt with in about a week.
	My first reaction to the Bill was, like that of many others, why is it here and what is it going to do? Perhaps the Secretary of State explained that with her mantra, "places a duty", which she kept saying. Yet again, local government will be loaded with more and more duties and costs. Most competent local authorities are already doing much of what is in the Bill, so one wonders whether it was concocted and put together by Ministers who looked at local government and its co-operation with local communities and themselves and decided that because it is working quite well and to the benefit of local communities, they would legislate and put in yet more Government restrictions and more duties.
	When I asked the chief executive and the leader of a big unitary authority for their first reaction, they both pointed out that if the Bill had to exist, it should be revised to take away many of the plans that local authorities were currently required to produce by the Government. I am adding to some of the thoughts already expressed about what should be in the Bill, but with a slightly different slant. Their authority, like many local authorities, is overloaded with reviews and requirements for plans, checks and so forth.
	That particular local authority—a unitary authority—estimates that the Government require approximately 80 major reviews and plans regularly from it. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is not in his place. When he was Minister for Local Government, he genuinely promised dramatically to reduce, and perhaps even to halve, the number of plans and reviews that this local authority, among others, had to produce for the Government. I understand that nominally there has been—or was at that stage—a large reduction in the overall number of plans. However, since then, more have been added and where there were two plans, they have often been combined into one or one has been made a sub-plan to another. In effect, then, there are more plans and more reviews than there were when the then Minister for Local Government asked for reductions.
	Most of those plans and reviews require the input and expertise of senior local government officials, who must produce detailed plans, often with ludicrous parameters. Let me give just one example. Local authorities with an influence on housing have been required to present a 30-year housing plan. Given that the Treasury seems to be unable to predict year on year—especially at the moment—the idea that local authorities could spend time and money guessing 30 years ahead with any reliability overstretches the imagination.
	It is hard to get to grips with this vague Bill. Some of the plans have the distinct appearance of old-fashioned, socialist "great leaps forward". It is a mongrel Bill. Apparently it is partly about "economic development", but, flicking through it, I failed to find any link to, for example, the business community. If we must have all these quangos and boards, which I severely doubt, it is critical for the business community to have a strong input on policy that affects economic development. After all, even under this Government the private sector must have the biggest role in generating wealth in any locality. As I have said, the Bill reeks of the Government's desire to produce old-time socialist plans, and one waits for the phrase "great leap forward" to appear.
	Many of the proposed changes, especially those involving local authorities directly, are best left for local authorities to make without rules, without regulations, and without Government overview. That haVE been the theme of many of the speeches that we have heard today, and of one key, noisy, slightly long and emphatic intervention from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I found his intervention intriguing, because we had discussions in the past when he was a union leader.
	Given that English local authorities have probably accepted petitions for more than 100 years, we should pay attention to chapter 2 of the Bill, which deals with petitions to authorities. Over time they have responded to various kinds of petition, and have responded more emphatically and effectively. Petitions are received in many forms—some are received electronically. Currently authorities acknowledge and respond to all of them, with the possible exception of the utterly ridiculous. I remember a few of those. I am tempted to suspect, however, that even the utterly ridiculous receive a formal response after consideration.
	The Bill contains a clause entitled "Democratic arrangements of principal local authorities". How can the Secretary of State possibly think that local authorities do not promote democracy and explain the roles of councillors, how to become a councillor, the support available to councillors to assist them in their role, how to approach councillors, and when their meetings and surgeries take place? That is common practice. It is done by all local authorities, and there is no need for legislation. Local authorities and indeed councillors, political or otherwise, naturally try to persuade other competent individuals, in particular, to become councillors and to take part on the democratic process. We do not need this legislation.
	Let me take up a similar theme. I am astonished that the Government feel the need to dictate to local authorities that senior officers are liable to be called to account. Local authority meetings are almost always—indeed, perhaps without exception—held in public. The appropriate senior officers are present, and they are held to account by the elected councillors. That arrangement has been the norm for decades, and it has been developed as local authorities have adopted more openness. I find it amazing that the Government require the central diktat that runs through the Bill and, perhaps even worse, will run through the secondary legislation that follows it.
	Perhaps the biggest opportunity that has been lost is the chance to return RDA functions to local authorities. The system worked very well before. The responsibility should be left to elected authorities, even if they work in groups—perhaps not dissimilar to the leaders' board, but without the need for legislative diktat.
	The Bill talks of—yet again—reviews, of further examination in public, of what is to be reviewed, and of even more approval of revision by the Secretary of State, who, of course, has reserved powers to revise and make further regulations. The same seems to apply to the economic prosperity boards: there are constitutions, rules and regulations on membership and voting, costs to be met by constituent councils and still further reviews of the boards and the various schemes. As I observed earlier, the business community does not seem to be involved.
	In the middle of this hotch-potch of a Bill is clause 29, which has not been mentioned so far. It removes the restriction on senior local authority employees undertaking political activities such as standing for election or speaking publicly in support of a particular political party. I believe that that restriction has worked well in the past. I understand from senior local authority officials—local government officers—that it has strengthened their impartiality and standing and has actually given them more authority. Although clause 29 is small, I think that we shall come to regret that retrograde step.
	I believe that most tenants—certainly those whom I know on many of the estates that I have visited—will be bemused to find that yet another new national body is being set up supposedly on their behalf. It is likely to be no more than a remote talking shop at taxpayers', or perhaps tenants', expense.
	I have flicked through a few of my concerns about a Bill which proclaims that it sets out to increase local democracy but which will, in my view—like all the Government's local democracy Bills—do exactly the opposite. I remain absolutely opposed to it.

Kelvin Hopkins: Because I agree with a great deal of what many Members have said, I will not repeat it but will try to have my own take on the Bill. I must, however, comment on what was said by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who, although his constituency is not contiguous with mine, is a near neighbour. I think of Bedfordshire as well as Hertfordshire, because the expansion might take place there, too.
	I believe that urban local authorities that run out of land for house building and that have house building needs should be able to expand around their borders, and I believe that conurbations present the most efficient way for human beings to live. We do not want to see strings of houses and little settlements scattered across the countryside; it is much better for them to be situated around large towns. Sometimes towns have to expand.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the policy of urban extension that has been a feature of regional spatial strategies. Does he think that such policies should be pursued, even if every community and elected representative at every level, from parish council to European Parliament, opposes them?

Kelvin Hopkins: Obviously each case should be viewed on its merits, but something must be done to help people who desperately need housing and cannot be rehoused because there is no available land or housing in their local authority area. We need sensitive extension of urban boundaries that takes account of the need for some green belt or green wedges. It should also be borne in mind that cities and towns over a certain size—with a critical mass—are more capable of providing better services because they have more resources.
	A town the size of Luton, with a population of nearly 200,000, is less able to provide services than larger places, such as Nottingham or Leicester. Light rail systems, for example, are not viable in towns with populations below about 400,000. It would be difficult to argue the case for a light rail system in Luton. I think that light rail systems are very attractive, and I would like to see one in Luton, but unfortunately we do not appear to have the necessary critical mass. However, we must find some way of housing people. Ideally, we would have slightly smaller populations, in which case we would not have the problem of housing crowding.
	My constituency has the youngest age structure of any in the country; it has more children at school than any other constituency. Those children will grow up, they will want to be housed and they will want somewhere to live that is close to where their families live, so we will need more houses. I understand the concerns of those who represent the areas bordering big cities and big towns such as Luton, but we have to do something about housing.
	When it comes to local democracy, we have lost a great deal. Local authorities used to have responsibility for business rates; many more powers over raising local finance; large historical equity in local authority housing, which they could use to build more houses and provide housing at reasonable rents for local people; and so many direct services that have now been outsourced or put into trusts. That was a much better way of organising things.
	I also regret the move from committee systems to the cabinet and back bencher arrangements that now exist. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about that, although I would not put my case in quite such a robust way—he has his characteristic, charismatic way of speaking, which I would like to emulate but am unable to. I know councillors who now sit as back benchers and are not cabinet members or portfolio holders. They sometimes think, "What am I doing here?"
	I was also astonished to find—I obviously voted for the legislation without realising what I was doing—that a decision made by the whole council can be overturned by the cabinet. I know that because it has happened twice in Luton. The council, which was Liberal Democrat and Conservative-controlled for a period—only just; it is now Labour-controlled—made a decision about school travel with a one or two vote majority, but the cabinet, which was controlled by the Liberal Democrats and one or two Conservative members, overturned the decision twice. I find it astonishing that a legislature could be overturned by an executive, but that happened and it is profoundly undemocratic. I would like to see much greater involvement of back benchers, the traditional system of committees with strong chairs, a great deal of openness and the full discussion, in party groups, of all policies. That used to happen in my time as a councillor. Sometimes the meetings would last five or six hours, but every detail of policy was discussed, voted upon by all members and taken to the council. That was a much more democratic way of carrying on.
	I do not think that it has been desirable that government has tried to force local authorities to get rid of their local authority housing, via arm's length management organisations or privatisation, as has happened in some cases, and handing over to housing associations. Council housing was a tremendous success for perhaps a century or so, and the best council housing—much of my constituency's has been sold off—was built during that time. Millions of people grew up in good homes, with comfortable gardens and all the usual facilities one should expect in council housing, because of successive Governments, Conservative as well as Labour. That has been lost and I want to see it restored.

Paul Beresford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the finances that one would think local authorities would keep—the capital receipts—are taken away too?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed, I would like capital receipts and, indeed, business rates and the borrowing powers that local authorities used to have, to be handed back to local authorities. I would like them to have the degree of independence that they had in the past. That was largely taken away by Conservative Governments, but the approach has been continued by Labour Governments ever since. I do not wish to look back to a golden age, but at times in the 1970s we did wonderful things with our local authorities; we built regional sports centres, swimming pools and thousands of houses—we housed a complete waiting list. We did great things, and they were decided at the local level. Of course, this was counter-cyclical and helped to keep people employed too. That is the sort of local government that I want.
	Recently, some of our Ministers have talked about reviving or reinvigorating pluralism, which is a system of democracy whereby there are different centres of power. It is not just centred in government, because there is also strong local government, strong trade unions, a strong legislature balancing the Executive, lobbying, business representation and so on. Those different centres of power rub against each other and ensure that power does not become over-centralised in government and at the highest levels of government, as has been the case in Britain in recent years. I strongly believe that we must restore local democracy, much more independence for trade unions and a strong, independent and non-politicised civil service. All those things were valuable parts of our democracy, and I want them to be rebuilt in the future.
	In a sense, those things were not what I came here to talk about. I wished to make some points that might appear rather trivial, but are none the less important. The Bill is about promoting democracy and democratic arrangements. One of my concerns, which is a very real one, is that turnouts in elections are low and have been getting lower. There are all sorts of reasons for that, one of which, as I have found on the doorsteps in my constituency—this is not true of everyone, but it is the case with a good number of people—is that people have a poor understanding of the process of voting; they do not actually know how to vote. Many people say that they have voted Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat for years, but we have records showing that they have never voted or have not done so for the past decade. They clearly think that they are voting when they are not voting or they are forgetting what they have done.
	Just last week, I spent 20 minutes explaining politics to a lady in my constituency—I explained what the European Parliament, the national Parliament and the council were all about—at the end of which she was very grateful. She had her card with her, so I told her that she should take it down to her local polling station—to the school next door—and put her cross against her preferred party, whatever it might be. She said, "I never knew all this before. Thank you for telling me." She was a sensible person, but she just did not know about this.
	I regularly speak in schools—our schools have civics taught in them—and I find that children often understand much more than their parents do about voting. When I explain to schoolchildren how the House of Commons works, I find that they know how it works, but their parents are often unaware of how it works. I have also had experiences where people have referred to me as a councillor, and when I tell them that I am not a councillor they ask me, "What are you?" When I then tell them that I am an MP, they ask, "What is an MP?". I then have to explain, at length, what an MP is and what the difference is between an MP and a councillor. I was once introduced as Councillor Hopkins, so I said that I was not a councillor. I was then introduced as the mayor of Luton, to which I replied that I was not the mayor. I was then asked what I was, so I said, "I am a Member of Parliament."
	The level of misunderstanding about politics and simple basics remains quite high among a good number of people. If we are to have a meaningful democracy, we ought at least to have explained to every person how to vote. Some people would think that this is patronising and that I am being unkind about a lot of our citizens, but what I am saying is true. I encounter all this on the doorstep and I am sure that other hon. Members do too.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the merits of the first-past-the post system is that it helps to make democracy more meaningful, because people know who they are voting for and they can put a specific person into power, whereas proportional representation would end that valuable constituency-MP link?

Kelvin Hopkins: I did not realise that my hon. Friend was sitting behind me, but I agree entirely with her. I made exactly the point that she did when I was on "The World at One" last week, having a debate with a colleague from the other place.
	Another factor in elections is even more worrying; the Moser report of some 10 years ago concluded that some 20 per cent. of our people are functionally not literate—for some it may be a language problem. Such people make excuses on the doorstep for not voting. They say, "I think you are all the same", "You are all crooks" and so on, but what they are really saying is that they do not want to be embarrassed by the fact that they cannot read.
	That situation is worrying, but other democracies, where the majority of the population cannot read, find of ways of helping people to vote. India, the largest democracy in the world, had its election in the past few days. The majority of its population cannot read, yet millions who cannot read vote. We must examine that example and try to find ways to help the 20 per cent. who perhaps want to vote but cannot deal with the literacy involved to make progress.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points, many of which I agree with—except for the one about proportional representation, on which he is quite wrong.
	I lived in India during a general election period some years ago, and I was impressed by the many steps taken there to increase turnout. They are very low-tech and would be achievable in this country; they include keeping the polls open for many days, moving security around from place to place and taking a more flexible approach to the opening of polling stations. One of the main contributors to people not voting these days is that we always vote on a Thursday. People come home from work and are too tired, they flop in front of "Britain's Got Talent" and they never get around to voting. If we could make it easier we might increase turnout without any clever fixes.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have thought for a long time that we should have two-day voting over a weekend, which would solve that problem. The Indians also use symbols, and we already have party symbols that we could make greater use of. Public service broadcasting should be used sympathetically and carefully to show people how to vote. Children in schools know how to vote, but many of their parents still do not quite get it, and I come across that problem too often.
	In the 1970s, in one local election ward in my constituency, one polling district was very affluent, with large houses occupied by sophisticated professional people, and another district was very poor. The turnout in the affluent area was 96 per cent., but in the poorer area it was 22 per cent. That differential turnout makes a mockery of democracy. I do not agree with compulsory voting, but I do want to even up those differences so that everyone who wants to vote can have their say. If we had some sort of legislation to help that happen, we would enhance our democracy greatly.
	There is a degree of alienation from politics. Voter turnout has fallen not just because people do not understand how to vote but because they have lost faith in politics. The turnouts in our general elections are rather lower than they are in other countries, and recent statistics from academic research show that optimism about political outcomes in Britain is much lower than in continental countries.
	The only thing that correlates with that declining interest in politics is the diminishing difference between the major parties. The two Front Benches are united in agreeing on a particular economic model with which many of us do not agree. Many people outside this place do not agree with it either. That model—globalised neo-liberalism—has brought us to the brink of economic disaster. We should return to a more sensible economic model that actually works. After Bretton Woods, for 25 to 30 years after the second world war, we had stability as well as economic growth that was much better than anything that we have had since. Recently we have had high instability.
	People say that we are all the same, and the major parties all support privatisation and outsourcing. Every now and then, there is a tactical retreat by one party or another, but by and large they are united. I do not agree with that. For example, as I have said many times, railway privatisation has been an economic catastrophe. That claim is rejected on both sides in this place, but the great majority of the population knows that it is true and would be happy to see the recreation of a state railway system, as exists on the continent of Europe. The Conservatives are grinning at that idea, but it is true.
	The Bill also includes provisions on construction contracts. I was on a housing committee in the 1970s and on one occasion I was told informally that a building worker had said in a pub somewhere that Luton borough council had been charged 15 per cent. over the odds for a housing contract. It was clear that a cartel was being operated by the building companies, and they were allocating contracts between themselves and making excess profits out of the local authorities. I made a speech in the council chamber accusing the builders of those practices. It was reported in the press and received no response, not even a denial. There was something profoundly wrong with that arrangement.
	The borough surveyor and the chief executive said that the council had to accept the lowest bid. I suggested then, as I do now, that we should recreate substantial direct labour organisations to be employed by local authorities to build and repair houses. We could use such DLOs as comparators. Local DLOs would do such work on a cost basis and they would not make a profit, so they would provide good competition for private builders. Indeed, I would go further and allow DLOs to work in the private sector. I remember the Lib-Lab pact that was formed in 1978 to keep the Labour Government going until the 1979 election. The one requirement of the Liberals was that the then Government drop a Bill that would have given DLOs the right to work in the private sector. That was a socialist step too far for the Liberals. We are now far removed from such interventionist and direct provision of services, although it was a fine socialist idea that DLOs—which were run by local authorities, democratically controlled and accountable—should have had that ability. I want us to move back in that direction and have DLOs that can not only build houses for the local authority, but provide good competition for the private sector. They would also provide good, secure, well-paid and trade unionised employment for thousands of building workers.

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that it was wrong that councils were required to accept the lowest bid and that we should have direct labour organisations as a comparator. Is he saying that councils should not accept any bidder that would undercut the DLO or anyone that would be more expensive? He left it unclear which direction they were supposed to go.

Kelvin Hopkins: There would still be a private sector. Although I am a fan of DLOs, I do remember that some were not good. I was actively involved with the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, so I used to visit them. Manchester and Sheffield had first class DLOs, but some of those in the London boroughs were, frankly, corrupt. When the cost charged for work by some of the London DLOs was compared with the cost for those in the north-east and north-west, it was found to be four times higher. It is fine to have good private sector builders, but good DLOs should also be allowed, if local authorities want them. Public sector comparators would contribute to ensuring that building took place at reasonable cost.
	I have touched on areas that are not yet in the Bill, and I hope that they will be put into the Bill or other legislation later. In any event, I hope that my contribution has been of interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Peter Luff: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). I agreed with some of his remarks about democracy, but I found his later comments about direct labour organisations a little more difficult to accept. I canvassed in the streets of Camden in the 1987 election and I remember trying to work out why it was that my prospective constituents could not get any repairs done on their council flats in the daytime, but only in the evenings and at weekends. It quickly dawned on me that the DLO staff were sitting around all day doing nothing and doing all the work on overtime. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's recollections of DLOs are rose-tinted, although he did admit some problems existed in urban DLOs. I think his solution would create more problems than it would solve.
	I am sorry not to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), because his speech followed the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) who talked, appropriately enough, about Lilley Bottom. That reminded me of the link between the right hon. Member for Streatham and me, which is the happily named village of Wyre Piddle, around which he had constructed a bypass, for which I am very grateful. When it comes to local democracy, it is such matters that drive us all forward. Wyre Piddle has cause to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
	I shall concentrate my remarks on parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, which are dealt with in my Committee's report, published in March. I have to say to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), that it is a great shame that this report, which was published on 13 March, still has not had a response from the Government. It would have been helpful to have had that response in time for Second Reading. I understand that the reason for that is that the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, whose responsibility it is to reply, is on paternity leave, but the House is ill-served when a response to a major report from a Committee, dealing directly with legislation to be debated on the Floor of the House, is not available in time for us to know what the Government's judgments are.
	When I intervened on the Secretary of State on the subject of the ability of local authorities to opt out of economic prosperity boards, I was disturbed to discover that her reply was simply, "Well, we can discuss this in Committee." The issue was raised by my Committee in its report, the House should have the Government's position before it for this debate, and there will not be time in Committee to cover these matters because of the scandalously short timetable available for such a complex Bill.
	It is a complex Bill. It runs to 138 pages and has 146 clauses, seven schedules and nine parts. It is not easy reading. It was subject to extensive amendment in the Lords, more amendments will be required in this place, and I predict confidently that, on Report, we will wade through scores of amendments that will be completely undebated, which is extremely unsatisfactory. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will divide the House on the timetable motion, which is scandalously inadequate for such an important Bill. For a Bill that purports to be about democracy to be railroaded through this House without adequate discussion is profoundly undemocratic. One of the many reasons that we in this place are all in trouble at present is the contempt for the House's procedures that we will see again with this Bill, and that we have seen so often in the past. That is one of the reasons why this place is held in contempt by voters outside—it is not just about our expenses, but about issues such as this, too.
	It is also a shame that no Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Minister is in his place on the Bench to hear the debate. The subject of the Bill—local democracy—is primarily a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, but economic development and construction are primarily matters for BERR and a BERR Minister should have been here. Of course, we know that the problem is that there are only three BERR Ministers in the Commons, two of whom are shared with other Departments and one of whom is on paternity leave. There is not a BERR Minister spare, but it is a great shame on matters of economic development. I like the DCLG team. The Under-Secretary has been kind to me. We tried to sort something out in respect of automatic rate relief for small businesses, although we failed. I say nothing against the DCLG team, but a BERR Minister should be here too and should be replying to the debate.
	Today, we mourn the death of a great comic. Danny La Rue died earlier today. The question about Danny La Rue was whether he was a woman or a man. He did not like the term "drag artist"—he preferred to call himself a comic in a frock. What Danny La Rue was or was not is an interesting matter, and what this Bill is or is not is an interesting matter too. It purports to be about democracy, but it is actually something very different. I am tempted to say that the Secretary of State, when she opened this debate, was wearing a frock. Whether that makes her a comic or not, I am not entirely sure, but I do not think she understood the irony of bringing forward a Bill on democracy in an undemocratic way and with measures that are contrary to the best interests of democracy.
	I have recently been embroiled in the row over expenses—I do not want to go down that path at present—as we all have. When I was out canvassing in my constituency with my constituents' full knowledge of my alleged involvement in the scandal, I was struck by the fact that that issue was not raised with me. The issue raised on the doorstep by many of my constituents was their sense of powerlessness in the face of an over-mighty Executive and their sense that they do not control their own lives any more. They so often resent us and they resent the apparent abuses of our expenses because they feel we are telling them what to do all the time and to do things they do not want to do all the time while we have our snouts in the trough. There is growing resentment of the political class that seeks to control what happens at a local level far too intensely.
	The Bill, in so many respects, makes that problem worse, not better. A Bill about local democracy could have done so much, sweeping away the duties and obligations on local authorities, rather than adding to them. That is the root of true democracy. That is what we should be seeking to do and that is the dreadful wasted opportunity that the Bill represents.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in his excellent and very thoughtful speech, was in danger of getting into a contradiction, which was explored by I cannot remember who. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Streatham back in his place—he must read my earlier remarks, but I thank him again for the Wyre Piddle bypass.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon got into an interesting debate about the apparent contradiction between representative and direct democracy. It was a debate I would have loved to continue, because it was very important and goes to the heart of what we should be discussing tonight. What struck me is that what touches my constituents in their day-to-day lives in relation to democracy and control of their lives is planning policy. Planning affects people most directly, and the sense of outrage in my constituency about the South Worcestershire joint core strategy is palpable. We have three councils coming together. Worcester city faces the same problem as Luton, and does not have space within its boundaries to expand— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Luton, North thinks it has, but we have to face the fact: there is not room in Worcester for extra housing in significant numbers.
	Worcester has been designated a sub-regional growth centre in the regional spatial strategy, so the two councils around it—Wychavon district council, which covers my constituency, and Malvern Hills district council—have come together with Worcester city council to consider how they can find that housing. Trying to explain to people that the South Worcestershire joint core strategy, driven by three local district councils, is actually the creature of a regional spatial strategy whose parameters have effectively been set by central Government is very difficult indeed. I see my councils being blamed for decisions that the regional assembly was obliged to take because it knew that otherwise the Government would intervene and demand still higher housing numbers.
	We are in the bizarre, Alice in Wonderland position of conducting a consultation on the South Worcestershire joint core strategy, knowing that the regional spatial strategy plan revision that has been imposed on the region by the Government is likely to increase the housing demands still further. When we have the joint core strategy in place, we will almost certainly have to revisit it immediately and increase the numbers. There is no local democracy in this process whatsoever.  [ Interruption. ] I sense that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), a former distinguished Minister in this field, is seeking to catch my eye. I will happily give way to him.

John Gummer: Is my hon. Friend not being too kind to the Government? They have just passed the Planning Act 2008, which means that when the Sizewell C and D proposals in my constituency are put forward, local people will not even be able to discuss the road situation, whether stuff should come in by sea, what will happen to the legacy buildings and the like. Those things will be excluded because some fatuous commissioner will appear from London, take soundings and then go back, and her or his word will be law. That is the worst kind of change, and this Bill does not make it any better—in fact, it makes it worse.

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful and important point, as he usually does. The sense of powerlessness that local communities feel in the face of the juggernaut of central Government will not do. The answer is that we should have national policy statements, as allowed for in that Act, and that they should be voted for in this House—the Government are resisting that—so that they have the force of law. We should then have the normal, local planning process—no Infrastructure Planning Commission—for the next Sizewell reactor on the strictly local issues. With Sizewell B, how much time did the strictly local issues take out of the process? A couple of weeks?

John Gummer: Thirty days.

Peter Luff: That would be entirely acceptable out of the 300 days. We could have an entirely local process. The local community would have its say on the issues that mattered and the Government would rightly be setting down the national parameters for nuclear power that we actually need. The Government have once again—as in this Bill—taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and the nut that they are breaking is local accountability and local democracy.
	On the subject of local democracy, another thing that is not in this Bill that I hope will be in an early Bill from a new Conservative Government is the abolition of the Standards Board for England. Again, it significantly inhibits local democracy. I have an extraordinary situation in my constituency, where a major wind farm is being proposed. It falls in the ward of two members of the development control committee, which means that they are unable to express any view whatsoever about the wind farm's merits, whether they are for or against it. I do not know whether they want to stand up to people opposing it or join the opposition, but they cannot express a view, because as soon as they do so, they lose their vote on the development control committee. The situation is utterly bewildering to constituents.
	I am trying to resist pressure to express a view on the wind farm because I do not want to trump my two able colleagues on the district council who are being thrown out of the process, with their voices stripped from them. Local councillors exist to express the views of local people, but the Government have put in place mechanisms that take their voice away. There is nothing more undemocratic than removing the voice of a district councillor on a major and sensitive local planning decision. The Bill thus represents another missed opportunity.

Nick Raynsford: Would the hon. Gentleman like to ask the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) how many times he took decisions regarding planning obligations that took away power from local councils and imposed central Government diktat when he was Secretary of State for the Environment?

Peter Luff: I think that would be procedurally tricky, but my right hon. Friend might try to catch my eye later. I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the power of the Secretary of State and the lack of appeal for aggrieved residents in respect of decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate through the Secretary of State.

John Gummer: rose—

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend has caught my eye. At the risk of being an intermediary in a debate between two Members, I shall give way.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue is totally different from institutionalising a mechanism whereby people are excluded from having any view on local matters? If a Secretary of State intervenes, that is because there is a national concern that requires a national input. However, a system that says that no local body or person may take any part whatever in decisions about what happens to their locality—let alone what might happen afterwards with the Secretary of State—is a disgrace.

Peter Luff: I think I shall let my right hon. Friend's wise intervention speak for itself, in case I receive an adverse ruling from the Chair.
	The subject of accountability goes to the heart of many of my Committee's concerns about the Bill. Paragraph 119 of our report talks about the "accountability gap" that has been created with regional development agencies. It says:
	"The Committee recognises that regional committees"—
	the new Regional Select Committees of the House—
	"are expected to have a key role in the accountability of the integrated regional strategies and regional governance. It is too soon to judge their effectiveness"—
	most members of my Committee have a view about the likely effectiveness of those Committees, but we shall see—
	"but this Committee does have concerns about whether regional committees will have the time and resources to scrutinise sufficiently regional strategies. Nor is it clear how such scrutiny will fit with existing committees' remits, such as this Committee's scrutiny of BERR and its agencies, including RDAs."
	The Bill, and the House generally, is creating a pig's breakfast through the approach on regional and local matters.
	As I said in an intervention, this report was the first for which my Committee thought it necessary to insert a lengthy glossary at the beginning, because as Committee members considered the Chairman's draft, they got completely bewildered by the alphabet soup of initials. The array of terms includes EPBs, LALBs, LALFs, RSSs, RDAs, REP PSAs and SNRs, not to mention the single pot budget. Our constituents do not understand the system in operation now, which I am slowly getting my head around as I wrestle with the South Worcestershire joint core strategy and the regional spatial strategy. I cannot begin to think how they will ever understand the new mechanisms, which have major problems with accountability.
	I want to talk particularly about the role of regional development agencies, although I shall not take too long because several colleagues wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have serious reservations about the existing responsibilities of RDAs. We have heard about the Government's tendency to add endlessly to RDAs' responsibilities. They are Christmas trees on which baubles are regularly hung, with people saying, "Oh, there's a task. Who shall we give it to? I know, the RDA." Such an approach is already diverting RDAs from their core task of helping regional development.
	I have changed my view on RDAs. When they were set up, I had one of the worst in the country: Advantage West Midlands. Everyone acknowledged that it was appalling, but it has now got its act together and does useful work locally. It did a fantastic job after the closure of MG Rover on the Birmingham-Bromsgrove borders and following last year's floods in my constituency. It does good, important work by keeping major employment in my constituency and that of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).
	During the Committee's evidence gathering, we were struck that we heard only one single voice against the existence of RDAs, which was in the evidence given by the TaxPayers Alliance. However, no one else, including the Forum of Private Business, the British Chambers of Commerce, local authorities and non-governmental organisations, was critical, even though the volume of evidence was thick. We did not hear just from the usual suspects, such as Government Departments and quangos. Business itself said that they wanted RDAs, even though they had concerns about many aspects of their work. I have concerns about their overseas work, while local authorities have concerns about boundaries. I am glad that my party's policy is now not to abolish RDAs, but to give a voluntarism about boundaries to local authorities. Essex made a particularly powerful case to our Committee about the inappropriateness of the boundaries of the East of England Development Agency, which are extraordinary, given that the furthest reaches of Suffolk, as represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, have little in common with Essex. Such large discrepancies need to be addressed.
	I commend the Committee's report to the House—I would—and it is tagged to the debate. It has a useful summary although, in view of the time, I will not examine it for as long as I had hoped. One of the report's overarching themes is the extent to which the proposals lack clarity and detail—a point ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. The provision in the Bill about the local authority leaders' boards says nothing. It does not tell us who will be on the boards, what they will do or what criteria the Secretary of State will apply. Although there are a lot of words in the Bill, they mean very little. Time and time again the Bill lacks clarity. It should have a proper Committee stage so that such clarity can be put in place, but that will not happen because of the time that is being allowed.
	A section of the summary sets out the overarching theme of the Committee's report:
	"Most importantly, there needs to be a proper balance between RDAs' business focus and the role of councillors in representing the views of their constituents. We are concerned that the proposals in the Bill about the relationship between RDAs and local authorities place too much weight on the views of RDAs and business interests, particularly during the drafting and agreement of the single integrated regional strategy. We call for the role of local authorities—and of the communities they represent—to be strengthened."
	We are the Business and Enterprise Committee, so it is our job to promote economic development and to do what we can to create the business environment for it. However, the message from the business community to us was, "We know better than other people where houses and jobs should go. We have a superior view to the ordinary citizen casting his or her vote at election time." I understand why it said that—it wants certain things, which I respect—but, in a democracy, people have a right to express themselves, to see that view expressed by their local representatives and then to be proved wrong. In fact, more often than not the opinion would not be wrong, because when people are treated like grown ups and involved in a process intelligently, communities will take the right decisions. The idea that decisions should be imposed on them, which lies at the heart of the Bill, is deeply offensive.
	The regional strategies have, at present, tenuous democratic accountability. I never was a fan of regional assemblies, but they achieved something. If we were to abolish them, the right thing to do would be to create a forum of local authorities, which would have responsibility for planning policy. There used to be the south-east forum; what was it called? I cannot remember. [Hon. Members: "SERPLAN."] It was SERPLAN, the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. That was the right way to do things. The same was done in the west midlands. That is the way to provide accountability, to avoid too much nimbyism, and to get democratic buy-in, but that just has not happened. That is what worries me. The Bill, particularly in parts 4, 5 and 6, does not address the underlying issues.
	There were a host of details in the report. I do not know what the Government response to them is, because we have not received it. We have not had a response on Second Reading, either; I asked the Secretary of State about one specific issue, and she was not able to answer me. It is an important issue, because if an economic prosperity board—by the way, let us call it an economic partnership board; let me suggest that amendment to the Government, because "prosperity" is a difficult word at present. If it were called an economic partnership board, it would have the same initials. If an economic partnership board is composed of willing volunteers, it will work, but if one of them changes political control and is no longer a willing volunteer, and starts being a drag anchor on the rest, it will not work any more. What are the mechanisms by which that unwilling partner can be excluded from the process? It is not clear. The Secretary of State said that we could look at the issue in Committee, but it needs to be looked at now, urgently, because the new bodies—I am very sceptical about the need for them, by the way—must work perfectly from day one. The nation faces an awful challenge in recovering from this dreadful recession, and bureaucracies that do not quite know how they function will not help us to get out of it.
	Finally, I should just like to speak up for the Woodland Trust. This point also goes to the heart of one of my Committee's concerns. The trust's submission to Members about the Bill says:
	"Proper and meaningful consultation helps ensure transparency and public confidence in decision-making. In its present form there is, however, a risk that the legislation will erode public and stakeholder engagement. The Trust believes that the Bill must provide a statutory role for regional stakeholders such as NGOs".
	Given the inadequate democratic structure of the Bill, the cumbersome local authority leaders' board arrangements, and the subsuming of power by regional development agencies over planning policy, which I abhor, it is all the more important that the voices of organisations such as the Woodland Trust are heard. My Committee, in one of its recommendations, said something along the same lines. The trust also points out:
	"the strategies should include policies tailored to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. In practice this could involve implementing policies that protect crucial environmental assets, such as ancient woodland, restore degraded habitats and embark on a strategic expansion of the natural environment to deliver accessible and multifunctional greenspace."
	I agree with the trust, which does marvellous work in my constituency and around the country. If such organisations feel excluded from the Bill, its lack of democratic accountability is even more worrying. It is a great duty to vote against the Bill's Second Reading later this evening.

Martin Horwood: Despite her current difficulties with  The Daily Telegraph, with the Prime Minister and with various other people, I confess to sometimes having a bit of a soft spot for the Secretary of State. Anyone who can run for the deputy leadership of the Labour party under the slogan "I'm nuts about Hazel" deserves some credit for adding a bit of colour and life to British politics. She was absolutely right in some of her opening remarks. There is anger at politicians at the moment, and it should be channelled, if possible, into practical changes. We do need a vibrant and thriving local democracy. We do need more empowerment and civic participation, and she said all that.
	However, the Secretary of State and her Ministers must understand that those words sound appallingly hollow to people in my constituency, who have enjoyed endless opportunities to "have their say" during the five-year progress of the south-west regional spatial strategy, from development through to, we hoped at some stage, implementation, and then abolition. There has been an extended, extravagant, and doubtless very expensive pantomime of consultation, which has had virtually no impact at all on the strategy as it has developed. Sadly, my impression is that the Bill will make regional government less democratic, less accountable and even more vulnerable to diktat from the Secretary of State and Ministers.
	As the Secretary of State and her Ministers have refused to discuss the impact of individual regional spatial strategies in detail, perhaps they can be forgiven for not actually knowing what really happened in the south-west, and why they have 35,000 public comments, most of them objections, on their desks for consideration. That is part of a total of nearly 100,000 comments—again, mostly objections, as far as Government offices for the regions can tell—nationwide. That may be why the Bill does not remotely address the real problems of local democracy.
	Let me explain what has happened locally during the progress of the south-west regional spatial strategy. In 2005, we had our first opportunity locally to "have our say", in the words of a document produced in Cheltenham. It set out some of the direction of travel of the emerging regional spatial strategy. I went along to a consultation meeting that was held, before I was even elected as a Member of Parliament. There was pretty much unanimity among local community and elected representatives there. We supported more affordable housing, resulting not just from a trickle-down from the private sector, but from giving powers to local councils and, in our case, arm's length management organisations such as Cheltenham Borough Homes, to buy and build more council housing. There was acceptance that quite high numbers of houses should be built in urban areas such as Cheltenham.
	I baulk sometimes at accusations of nimbyism from Labour Members who talk about us opposing all new development. They ask, "Where will people live?" but we have accepted consistently the numbers that were set out in RPG10—regional planning guidance note 10—which suggested that as many as 8,100 new homes be built in the urban area of Cheltenham. That figure has received fairly wide acceptance across all parties. It is a very challenging number, but we believe it is potentially deliverable.
	What we opposed were the absence of environmental considerations, and the discussion of growth that went far ahead of local population growth. It was apparently based not on population growth in our immediate area, but on a general model handed down from on high that seemed to imagine enormous migration into the south-west, presumably corresponding to some kind of depopulation of the north of England, which would be concentrated around only specific towns and cities.
	We specifically opposed the extra housing going into urban extensions. As I said, those urban extensions do not equate to all the extra housing, so it is possible to oppose the urban extensions and still support a great deal of extra housing. The original consultation document about those urban extensions contained comments such as this about the green belt between Cheltenham and Gloucester:
	"It includes some pleasant countryside, which is of lesser landscape significance when compared to the adjoining areas of the Severn Vale or Cotswolds. In reality, it is quite affected by transport corridors, such as . . . the M5 motorway. Parts of this area are very close to the urban centres of Cheltenham and Gloucester, and could provide logical urban extensions in terms of easy transport access. Other parts of the Green Belt are more rural in character and remote from existing development."
	Apart from being staggeringly patronising, that is fundamentally wrong. The importance of green belts and other treasured spaces that have been repeatedly rejected for development was not that they were chocolate box Cotswold villages— [Interruption.] It would be great if Ministers could listen to this part of the argument, which is important. The importance of green belts is not that they are chocolate box Cotswold villages, but that they are sometimes modest green spaces next to urban populations. In my constituency, it is the urban populations of areas such as Leckhampton, Up Hatherley, Swindon village, Springbank and Hesters Way, which include at least one of the most deprived areas in the south-west, who value the green belt spaces.

John Gummer: Is it not also true that the towns themselves value that gap? People in Felixstowe in my constituency do not want the Trimleys to become part of Felixstowe. They want the gap not just for Trimley St. Mary and Trimley St. Martin, which are small villages, but they want it because of Felixstowe itself, which feels itself to be a town. That bit of land may not be the most beautiful in a beautiful county such as Suffolk, but it is theirs. They recognise the beauty of it and they do not want pompous people from outside suggesting that it is not as good as someone else's.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman puts it extremely well. I agree with him entirely on that point. In fact, the places that I listed were not villages. They are parts of the urban body of Cheltenham. It is the modest green space next to them that separates them from Churchdown and from the city of Gloucester. I have nothing against Gloucester. Some of my best friends live in Gloucester, but I do not and I do not wish to, and neither do the people of Cheltenham. We do not want to become part of one great big agglomeration, and the green belt performs a vital task in keeping them apart.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is no longer in his place, said that perhaps every case should be looked at on its merits in terms of the loss of green belt and green spaces, but the whole point of the green belt is its permanence. If it becomes negotiable—if every case can be looked at on its merits—that gives a green light to greedy developers to make a beeline for green belt areas that will deliver them more profit. If Cheltenham were an island, it would be obvious where the environmental constraint lay and there would be no question of impinging on the spaces beyond it. Because what we are trying to defend is not sea, but treasured green space, it suddenly becomes negotiable. The real value of that green space to local people, to the environment and to local food production sometimes gets lost.
	Through 2006 and 2007 consultations rolled on. We had workshops in Swindon, which were great fun. We had lots of community and elected representatives going to them. Once again, we were pretty united in our opposition to urban extensions. In 2007 the area was flooded and we expected that the housing numbers might be re-examined, and certainly that the urban extensions in flood risk areas such as Cheltenham and Tewkesbury might be looked at again, but no. As the regional spatial strategy lumbered on, the numbers kept on going up despite the flooding. The proposed urban extensions got bigger and bigger, impinging entirely on green belt on one side of town, and entirely on areas that Government inspectors and planning inquiries had repeatedly rejected for development on the other.

Bob Spink: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about safety and flooding, does he share my disappointment that the economic assessment duty on local authorities does not extend to parish and town councils, such as Canvey Island town council in my constituency, and does not give equal weight to environmental, social and safety issues that affect Canvey Island, such as flooding and major accident hazard sites?

Martin Horwood: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Parish councils in my constituency have actively tried to challenge the regional spatial strategy, but they have been ignored along with everybody else.
	The Government have failed to include in the Bill a rigorous definition of "sustainability", so we face a ridiculous situation whereby the Government's own advisers and the Foresight report explain that increased urbanisation increases the risk of flooding, but, yet again, a wider economic priority as defined by the regional development agency is handed down and seen to be far more important than conditions of sustainability. If the Bill does not include such definitions, it will make the situation much worse.
	In 2008, the progress ground on and we had the grandly named examination in public. "At last," we thought, "we will actually be consulted in public, so maybe that will make a difference." We all wrote, lobbied and sent postcards and e-mails, although MPs were excluded from the examination in public hearings, apparently because we had a vested interest in speaking. However, I made a lengthy submission, and I am sure that constituency neighbours from other parties made submissions of one length or another.
	We again argued against urban extension into our green spaces; that the various communities, which I have already mentioned, had repeatedly rejected and opposed any construction there; that those objections had been supported in repeated votes by local authorities on both sides of the boundary and by local planning inspectors who had considered past planning appeals; and that the 750,000 to 1 million empty homes in this country were more of a priority than building on greenfield sites. We argued also for more regeneration in urban areas, and I quoted the Communities and Local Government Committee's inquiry of a couple of years ago, which heard from the west midlands regional development agency. Ironically, it pointed out that concentrating more development around already affluent towns such as Cheltenham undermined its efforts to attract developers to urban centres.
	We even agreed with the emerging strategy for rural housing suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who said that if we had to build on greenfield sites, it was better to do so on a small scale, with local and sustainable communities that are isolated from existing communities—to preserve the green space around them—but linked by good public transport. That strategy would help to support rural post offices, schools and shops that are dying because of the lack of people using them.
	One interesting thing about the consultation in Swindon was that, while the regional government representatives did not listen, some representatives from local areas did listen to each other, and I was impressed to hear even Conservative members, from counties such as Wiltshire, supporting more housing in very rural areas to help the growth of villages and to sustain local communities. We found unexpected common purpose on the issue.
	We supported better local transport, urban light rail and low-carbon vehicles as the alternatives to short car journeys, which, in terms of sustainability, seemed to be the only rationale for the urban extensions. Indeed, low-carbon vehicles are, I hope, only a couple of decades away now, and that is well within the planning scope of either these regional spatial strategies or their successors. We argued that the housing numbers themselves, handed down as they were from national Government models, were unreliable, first, because almost any 20-year model predicting economic and housing development would be unreliable; and secondly, because the growth assumptions were fast becoming out of date. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), who is seated on the Front Bench, confirmed late last year the economic growth assumptions underlying the south-west regional spatial strategy—still intact, I understand. I am not sure whether he would care to intervene on me to defend them now.
	The assumption under the south-west regional spatial strategy is that over the 20-year period, economic growth will average 3.2 per cent.—that is plus 3.2 per cent., I should say, for the avoidance of confusion. Clearly, that is utter fantasy. It is a dangerous assumption. On the ground, it translates into the assumption that towns such as Cheltenham will grow enormously through more economic activity, more migration and more growth. However, it completely ignores the important environmental constraints that we are discussing.
	We also argued that the Barker review and the whole strategy that gave rise to the numbers were flawed because the issue was about affordability rather than identified local housing need. In 2004, in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Barker herself said that if there was a downturn, the targets should be reduced; the downturn has happened, but the numbers have not been reduced. Ministers questioned by the Environmental Audit Committee steadfastly refused to budge on whether they would ever reduce the numbers in a downturn, as Barker had recommended. The Government have departed from even their own adviser's original strategy and are sticking to the numbers as if they were religious dogma.
	There is no connection at all with locally identified housing need. In Cheltenham, the numbers that we have ended up with compare with a housing waiting list of some 3,500 people in my constituency. If a high enough percentage of the original number of 8,500 had been for social housing for rent, that housing need could easily have been coped with. The number that we have ended up with in and around Cheltenham is 13,800. Inevitably, that has forced green belt land and other valuable green spaces into the area freed up for development, and that was based on no rational analysis that I can see. That last bump up in the numbers came as a result of the examination in public and visits by what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) called "fatuous" inspectors.

John Gummer: Pompous inspectors.

Martin Horwood: Pompous inspectors, then.
	I made a freedom of information request to discover exactly how much time those officials had spent in one of the communities into which an urban extension that had not been in the regional spatial strategy before was added. I discovered that on the trip to examine the various areas, the inspectors in the examination-in-public process went from Bristol to Thornbury, Quedgeley, Brookthorpe, Gloucester docks, Twigworth, Innsworth, Down Hatherley, Brockworth, Gloucester business park, Crickley Hill and the community in question, Leckhampton. They then went on to Shurdington, Cheltenham, Uckington, Swindon—I think they meant Swindon village—Cheltenham racecourse, which implies a strange route, Prestbury, Bishop's Cleeve, Ashchurch, Tewkesbury, the southern edge of Cheltenham, Avonmouth and the Avon gorge, before finally finishing in Bristol. How long did that tour take—a month, two weeks? No. It was completed in a single day.
	My local paper spent time with a satnav and worked out how long could have been spent in each location. The answer was no more than five minutes. In the examination-in-public report, the tour resulted in precisely 12 words relating to the Leckhampton community. They were:
	"A further area of search is identified to the south of Cheltenham."
	That was it; there was no further explanation or rationale. On that basis, an area that has been fought over for decades—and repeatedly rejected by local planning inquiries and local planning inspectors as inappropriate for development—is to be handed over to greedy developers.
	On the other side of Cheltenham, to its north-west, is an area that is almost entirely made up of green belt land; it stretches up to the toxic waste dump at Wingmore farm, and is also being allocated for housing. As both areas are subject to flooding, I would not rush to buy a house in either area. The treasured green fields that people have enjoyed and valued will be built on as a result of the process.
	The Bill does not introduce the greater powers for local authorities that we might have sought. It does not seek to consult bodies such as the Sustainable Development Commission or even allow local regional bodies such as Sustainability South West to influence the development of these strategies to bring in more sustainability. Instead, economic prosperity boards will be brought into the process, so we will have more of the manic pursuit of economic growth without regard to sustainability. I would trust a body such as the Sustainable Development Commission to have a positive influence on this, because it might clear out some of the fluff around the definition of sustainability, and the Government could do worse than to consult it on the definition that they should have in the Bill. Jonathon Porritt, who is my constituent, I am proud to say, has done an exceptional job as chair of the commission, and I am sure that he would gladly oblige the Minister by providing him with a robust definition of sustainability that might give the Bill slightly stronger environmental criteria.
	We now have a regional spatial strategy based on a completely unsustainable economic growth rate. A growth-based set of housing numbers will be handed down to the regional spatial strategy, but without the growth. What happens when we have growth-based numbers without the growth? The areas that have been brought into play, including all the large greenfield sites and green belt areas, will be the first, not the last ones that developers make a beeline for. The Government introduced the sequential test for greenfield sites and tried to prioritise brownfield sites but have since abandoned it, which might mean that developers end up developing the greenfield sites but never get around to the brownfield ones because, in practice, the numbers will not be delivered.
	Nothing in the Bill reassures me that this unsustainable policy will be reversed by the Government, let alone by the democratic will of local communities. There is a lack of a clear definition of sustainability. There is the reinforcement of undemocratic, unaccountable regional governments. There is more hidden power for the centre and the Secretary of State, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) rightly pointed out. There is no reference to any obligation to take climate change, either mitigation or adaptation, into account. There is not even a reference to the Government's own natural environment public service agreement as part of the regional strategies. There are precious few environmental safeguards, and there is less democracy and less accountability.
	The south-west regional spatial strategy is the last such strategy still awaiting implementation—it is still on the Secretary of State's desk. Perhaps even now she may delight my constituents and get me off her back and those of her Ministers by making some of the changes that local people have asked for. We have some hope of that, but we also have a great deal of fear. My constituents in Leckhampton, Hatherley, Swindon village, Hesters Way and Springbank fear that they will lose their last defence against many of these development proposals, which have already started, and cite the emerging regional spatial strategy as the reason for that. Others fear many other things. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds fears that
	"Existing regional spatial strategies are an important part of the toolkit to"
	prevent biodiversity loss
	"and many contain forward-thinking policies on biodiversity such as the South West Nature Map, which identifies the best areas in the south west region to conserve, create and connect wildlife habitats at a landscape scale. These policies are at threat from a streamlined single regional strategy which prioritises economic growth."
	The Campaign to Protect Rural England is certainly fearful of what may happen. It has identified the potential loss of 27,000 hectares of greenfield sites—an area the size of Birmingham is at risk. That means higher CO2 emissions, loss of local food production, and a catastrophic loss of the green space that is good for our physical and mental health and adds peace and beauty not only to great, sweeping landscapes but on a small scale that is very valuable to local people. It allows them to go for walks in green fields rather than through housing estates, and preserves small fields and small rural environments that are an escape from urban sprawl. Once lost, those vital green spaces will be lost for ever.
	Expenses scandals may well be forgotten one day; I think that some hon. Members would like that to happen quite soon. Ministers at the Department should look to the long term and hope that they will not be remembered as the people who empowered regional governments, not local people, and enabled the destruction of large swathes of the British countryside.

Edward Garnier: I sympathise hugely with what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has said. I was much amused, but equally horrified, by the journey made by the inspectors from Bristol as they travelled around, ostensibly inspecting where the visitation of development should be placed in his neck of the woods. I sympathise with him not simply because he and I have race courses in our constituencies, but because he described the utter absurdity of this Government's activities in that area of public policy. That absurdity is highlighted and reinforced by the title of the Bill. Others have mentioned it, but it is worth repeating. It is the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. Let us forget for the purposes of my remarks the aspect of the Bill to do with construction and concentrate on whether it will produce or encourage local democracy or have any effect on economic development.
	The provisions in the Bill to set up economic prosperity boards remind me of some sort of Soviet plan or communist China—the direct command economy systems that we thought had died out in the 1980s before the collapse of the iron curtain. But no, this absurd Government, in the final days of their death throes, are coming up with the language of the communist era and the idiotic hope that by passing laws that mean nothing, they will achieve something.
	It was notable that the Secretary of State could not be bothered to tell me, when I intervened, how many artificial quangos, boards and other forms of public authority she was creating, or how many they would replace. I suspect that they will not replace any, and that there will be a doubling or trebling of the number of absurd bodies created by this absurd Government in their dying days.
	I remind the House that this Government are past masters at the misuse of language. Here we have the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. I remember in 1998, as the shadow Minister for what was then the Lord Chancellor's Department, having to face up to the current Secretary of State for Transport, who in those days was a Minister in that Department. He was introducing to Parliament something called the Access to Justice Bill. If any piece of legislation did more to deny access to justice, I have yet to see it.
	Since then, an avalanche of Bills have been passed by Parliament, at the behest of this Government, with names that wholly misdescribe the purpose and intent behind their contents. They have all been the size of a telephone book, and the current Bill is no exception. They have all had many pages, schedules and clauses. Looking at the backs of them, one finds that they all repealed huge chunks of legislation passed in the recent past by this Government. I find it difficult to admire a Government who continually behave as though passing Bills were the answer to all our problems and do not concentrate on the issues that need to be dealt with.
	The fatuous nature of the Bill is highlighted in its early stages, as I pointed out to the Secretary of State. Clause 1, "Democratic arrangements of principal local authorities", states:
	"A principal local authority has a duty to promote understanding of the following among local people...the functions of the authority...the democratic arrangements of the authority"
	and
	"how members of the public can take part in those democratic arrangements and what is involved in taking part."
	Those are perfectly laudable aims, but it strikes me that they are not the priority ambition of a local authority. Sensibly, and at an economic public outlay, its priority ambition is to deliver public services at a local level.
	We do not need an Act of Parliament to tell a local authority how to give a civics lesson, yet the early part of the Bill is designed to do precisely that. When I intervened on the Secretary of State to ask her why it is thought appropriate for a principal local authority to have a duty to promote understanding of the functions of other bodies, which are not local authorities—I cited independent monitoring boards established under the Prison Act 1952, courts boards and youth offending teams—the answer was a stream of new Labour garbage.
	That was followed by an inability to explain clause 4, which states:
	"A principal local authority has a duty to promote understanding among local people of... the functions of a lay justice"—
	a justice of the peace or a magistrate. There are plenty of people beyond a local authority who can sensibly tell the people in that local authority area what a lay justice does,
	"how a member of the public can become a lay justice"
	and
	"what is involved in being a lay justice."
	That is not a function of a local authority. Yes, individuals, citizens and residents in a local authority area, some of whom may be local authority members, can have an interest in what a magistrate does and what is involved in being a lay justice, but surely it is not a function of a local authority, whether a district or a county council, to promulgate the sort of thing in clauses 3 and 4.
	Let me use some local examples to deal with the revisions of regional strategy and other matters in part 5. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) has said, the local citizen, resident and elector is most closely touched and affected by a local authority's work through planning matters. I assure the Minister for Local Government and his colleagues that my constituents in Harborough are far more concerned about planning matters than discovering from Harborough district council or Leicestershire county council what a lay magistrate does. I also assure the Minister that, if he came to my constituency, he would be left in no doubt about my constituents' views of several things and what the Government could do with them.
	The biggest local planning problem that currently faces my constituency is a plan dreamed up by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which, by an extraordinary coincidence, comes from Greater Manchester, like the Secretary of State—I put that to one side. It owns 5,000 acres of reasonable, albeit not prime, agricultural land, which it has farmed since just after the first world war. In the past 18 years, since I became a Member of Parliament for the constituency, it has attempted three times to build on it. I understand why it wants to do that, because, at the moment, one gets more money from building houses than from farming. However, if people are to behave as good neighbours, they should take account of their neighbours' concerns when they decide to build additional housing.
	We are considering not an eco-village of 2,000 or 3,000 people, but a massive new town of 40,000 people—twice the size of Market Harborough. That great town will be plonked—parachuted into the middle of rural Leicestershire—between Market Harborough, to its south, and Leicester, immediately to its north-west. The Co-operative Wholesale Society doubtless reckons that, given its close relations with the Labour party and the use of the word "eco" stuck in front of "town", it has a swimming chance of getting the town of 40,000 people up and running.
	If we are to have local democracy, economic development and sensible construction, the Bill will not appease my constituents if the eco-town plan goes through. We have agreement in Harborough district and with Labour Members who represent the city of Leicester—I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) in his place—and the affected Conservative Members, who are my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) and myself. This is not all that unusual, but we even have agreement from Liberal Democrat district and county councillors. We also have agreement from the best run county council in the country, Leicestershire, which is run by Mr. David Parsons—I hope that he is returned with a thumping great majority on Thursday, along with an increased number of Conservative councillors. We also have agreement with the citizenry—the voters, the electorate—of those parts of Leicestershire that will be most directly affected by this appalling scheme.
	But what has happened? The Government pay absolutely no attention to cross-party or individual objections, nor does the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which has behaved with the tin ear of some petty despot, as it seeks to railroad the plan through, with the connivance of central Government, to the detriment of my constituents.

John Gummer: Will my hon. and learned Friend add to the list of ridiculous expressions the phrase "eco-town"? What kind of eco-town can result in 40,000 homes being built in an area that is currently rural? That is not an eco-town; it is an eco-outrage. Only this Government could call it an eco-town.

Edward Garnier: I entirely agree. Only the Co-operative Wholesale Society could jump on that bandwagon in the hope of having a third shot at building on that site. It tried to build a new town when I first became a Member of Parliament. Its plans were accompanied by lots of pretty brochures and pictures of butterflies and birds and so forth, but the plan was exactly the same as before. It did not involve such an intensive amount of building or such a huge operation, but none the less, that was the plan. When that plan failed, the Co-operative Wholesale Society withdrew it. In 2007, the society came up with something called a sustainable urban extension, or SUE. It wanted to build a projectile of buildings from Oadby and Wigston, the suburban borough in my constituency that is right up against the city of Leicester, into the area concerned.
	The Prime Minister returned from China in late summer or early autumn of 2007—he had been Prime Minister for just a few weeks by then—having spoken to the leadership of the People's Republic of China, where I understand the planning laws are rather different. He returned with an enthusiastic desire to build something like 10, 12 or 15 eco-towns, which would no doubt be similar to the eco-cities that he saw in China. The hapless Housing Minister—I have forgotten who it was; there have been one or two since—was invited, in that polite way that the Prime Minister has, to provide him with a list of 10 sites from a wider list of 50 or so sites.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has had problems with an eco-town in his area. As I said a moment ago, the hon. Member for Leicester, South and I have also been battling hard together with our colleagues and neighbours to ensure that the idiotic scheme does not go through. However, the scheme has now become involved in murky politics, deals and everything other than proper planning and the proper assessment of the evidence. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there are also district councillors who are itching to say something about a scheme that will destroy their districts, but they are precluded from saying anything because the Standards Board for England will jump on them and say, "Ah, you're now parti pris and therefore may not carry out your local democratic function of being a representative of your own electorate." That is absurd and Kafkaesque, and it must stop.
	There are two other hideous blots on the landscape of Harborough that will not be improved by this Bill. The first is the random depositing of wind farms in my part of rural Leicestershire. There is a case for wind farms and for developing alternative sources of energy, but these things need to be done in the right place. If we destroy something that is beautiful simply because we can—and, incidentally, because we have a subsidy from the East Midlands Development Agency to do so—we will be doing so for the wrong reasons and in the wrong place. It is more difficult than pulling hens' teeth to get common sense out of this Government, the East Midlands Development Agency or the developers of such projects. I fear that there is nothing in the Bill that will make my constituents' lives any easier.
	A further planning matter that is not going to be sorted out by the Bill or dealt with in an enhanced demographic way relates to East Midlands airport. The airport is not in my constituency; it is in north-west Leicestershire. In May 2005, just as the general election campaign was beginning, the Government thought that it would be a good time not so much to bury bad news as to announce it. They announced a change in the air routes of the flights into the airport from the west to the south and to the east and, guess what, the airport—which is owned by the Manchester Airports Group; a strange connection, that—is now hoping that a night flight will come into the airport over my constituency in rural south-east Leicestershire once every 90 seconds.
	East Midlands airport wants to promote itself as the freight hub of England, and good luck to it. I suggest, however, that it—and the Co-operative Wholesale Society of Manchester—must do things for my constituents, rather than doing things to them for its own exclusive economic benefit. All the profits from the airport tend to get sucked back into Manchester. None of those profits seem to come to my constituents, so far as jobs, beneficial environmental circumstances or access to the airport are concerned. We get the downside, while Manchester seems to get the upside, in terms of money and of a reduction in council tax bills, because the Manchester Airports Group is owned by the local authorities of Manchester.
	This might sound like a rant, but I am desperately—

Peter Soulsby: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: Of course I will.

Peter Soulsby: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he return briefly to the powerful case that he was making against the proposed eco-town in his constituency and on the bounds of my constituency in the context of the Bill? He made a powerful case which is, as he has said, supported by members of all parties on the county council. He was right to remind the House of that this evening. Does he agree that two particularly absurd contentions lie at the heart of the Co-op's assumptions about the proposed eco-town? The first is that car ownership in the area could be held down to one car for every two households. The second is that some 60 per cent. of the people who would live in the area would be employed in the area. Both contentions are absurd and would have potentially disastrous effects on the infrastructure in his constituency and on the transport infrastructure and regeneration in mine.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The Co-op's proposal is that only one car would be allowed for every two households—I have no idea whether people would have to share a car and ring their neighbour to ask whether they could use it on a particular day—and that 60 per cent. of the people living in the eco-town would work in it. Those suggestions are utterly absurd and wholly unrealistic. It gets worse, however, because the Co-op wants—at someone else's expense—to ram a tram line from the middle of my constituency straight through some of the roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Various tram stops and park and ride systems have been proposed, including one park and ride facility at Coles nurseries in Scraptoft to serve the Thurnby, Bushby and Scraptoft areas. But guess who had not been told about the proposal? Coles nurseries. That must be local democracy at work à la new Labour.
	I really despair when a Bill such as this is given only four sittings in Committee; it has to be out of Committee by 18 June. Given the kind of infrastructure projects that the Government want to encourage, the term "democracy" is wholly meaningless in this context. I urge all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies who are elsewhere to return to the Chamber soon, so that they and those in the Chamber can vote this wretched piece of legislation into oblivion, along with the Government.

Alistair Burt: It has been an interesting debate, and two identifying characteristics perhaps stand out at the end of the day. The first is the theme of so many speeches from all parts of the Chamber—querying whether the Bill is really necessary. Local examples have been used to show where the Bill is likely to fall down in achieving its objectives and might be deemed irrelevant. So many speeches caught that flavour. The second identifying theme might turn out to be that this is one of the first pieces of legislation that the House has had to deal with post parliamentary apocalypse—in other words, post the sense that we gained while away last week and in the couple of weeks preceding it that something profound is happening outside the Chamber in the community. It was first associated with expenses and the like, but then became focused on a more general dissatisfaction with the political process and how it is run. This Bill might be one of the first that can be identified as asking this Parliament, "Do they really get it? Do they really understand why people feel so aggrieved at the way in which we do business and our democracy works? Have they really understood why people outside are so profoundly dissatisfied?"
	A couple of colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—have mentioned the Standards Board. There is a patent absurdity in ruling out those who are elected to represent a particular area from being able to speak on a topic that concerns them. We know that that it is absurd, the Government must know that it is absurd and the public certainly know it is absurd to elect someone in an area where a profound issue needs to be dealt with, only for them to be prevented from speaking about it. That is one of those things that people outside Parliament regard as utterly frustrating and it angers them enormously, yet all of us—the system—seem unable to do anything about it. Sooner or later, if we get it, we must recognise that such absurdities will have to go. The sense of powerlessness that people have expressed recently has caught us unaware in one aspect of our lives in this particular place, but it might well catch us out in other aspects as well. We can look through the Bill and find examples of where that might be the case.
	My first concern therefore goes to the very heart of part 1; it is about the strictures concerning democracy. Do we get it? What is the point of the Bill's argument in creating a duty to promote democracy? In introducing the Bill in the other place, the noble Baroness Andrews said that there was
	"always the temptation to shy away from local discretion and flexibility".
	As a Government Minister, she would know about that. She continued:
	"That would be the wrong response. Across our communities, people are facing uncertain circumstances, particularly in housing and jobs."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2008; Vol. 706, c. 850.]
	People are certainly facing that in North-East Bedfordshire, because unemployment has risen by 182 per cent. in a year. I repeat: my constituency has seen a 182 per cent. rise in unemployment in just one year. I say that because if Labour were in opposition and a Conservative Government had presided over a 182 per cent. increase in a year, I suspect that this place would be in uproar and that people would be on the streets outside. The issue, however, has somehow been glossed over, because the public have been persuaded by the Government that it is just one of those things that they cannot control. I am not sure whether the Government get it—the fact that one of the reasons for people being angry is this sense of powerlessness in respect of unemployment, as they were promised that boom and bust would go away, but feel that nothing is being done about the problem. The noble baroness was quite right to mention uncertain circumstances, particularly in housing and jobs, but I do not get any sense that anything in the Bill is designed practically to deal with them.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being most generous. Will he allow me to give another reason for the fact that the public simply do not get it? The Bill could, but fails to, create a safe policy for sites of major accident hazard such as those on Canvey Island, providing proper separation between residential homes and schools and those dangerous industrial sites. The Bill represents a lost opportunity.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point.
	Once again, a Government with good intentions fall down at the point of legislation. We have seen it before: good intention smothered by over-regulation and sometimes a failure to deliver the resources that are needed to provide something—in this instance, a duty for local authorities to promote democracy.
	Let me offer a challenge to the Minister that I offered to the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. If a local authority has been given a duty, what happens if it is deemed to have failed in that duty? What sanction will be imposed on an authority that is deemed to have failed? What criteria will enable someone to judge whether it has fulfilled its duty? If I, as an individual citizen, wished to mount an action against my local authority because I believed that it had failed in its duty to promote democracy, where would I start? What court or tribunal would I go to?
	I think that my noble Friend Lord Ullswater had it right when he said on Second Reading in the other place that
	"local councils have been undertaking this work"—
	the promotion of democracy—
	"for decades. From now on, local authorities will have to refer to statutory guidance on how to fulfil this duty. I am sure that it will become one of the numerous performance indicators that waste so much of local authority officers' time in compiling for audit. That is the top-down approach, which really does not empower local authorities."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2008; Vol. 706, c. 877.]
	I think that he was quite right. Once again, we have provided an opportunity for those who control local government, those who audit it and those who direct it from above to create a whole new panoply of criteria and performance standards against which a local authority is to be judged on matters with which it has already been dealing and which local people will not regard as being anything like as relevant as other issues that they wish to take up. So I am not impressed by the duty to promote that appears at the beginning of the Bill.
	That democracy matters at local level is clearly important, and there is one matter on which I think that the Minister and I would agree. If we are to rekindle democracy in this country in the wake of what has happened recently, I do not think that any of us will exclude the contribution of local political parties to what must be done. Apart from our sense of a collective failure of Parliament, I think we are missing something if we do not recognise the change that has come over the nature of local political parties during our lifetime and perhaps the generation before.
	We have moved away from the mass parties of the 1950s and 1960s, which provided a broad base of understanding of how politics worked locally. All too often now, local political parties are small. They are becoming more and more exclusive. The burden of carrying the local political flag has been falling on the same shoulders for a long time and people have worked exceptionally hard, but the refreshment that they used to receive has not been coming. That refreshment was made up of people who would, in their time, stand for representation on local authorities, understand the political process, explain it to others, and in some cases constitute the base of those who moved into national Government.
	If we are to re-examine the constitution from top to bottom, and recognise the anxiety that people feel outside, at some stage we shall have to examine the role of local political parties across the board and see what they can contribute to change. If we exclude them from our considerations of the promotion of democracy, I think we will be missing something. The public out there do not feel that we represent them through our political party structure in the same way as they used to. That may be partly due to the nature of change in society and the fact that people have more choice on a variety of issues, but they still find themselves with the same political choice that they had 80 or 90 years ago. By and large, they do not have the same choice in any other sphere of life. If local authorities are to get to grips with promoting democracy, I think that they should look at local political parties, and I suggest that we do so as well.
	I wish to talk briefly about two other parts of the Bill. Part 5 deals with regional issues, and I share my colleagues' concern that an opportunity to dismantle structure has not been taken. I have been involved in this argument with the Government for some time in respect of their own relationship with local government. Ultimately, the Government have to take a risk with local government, because either they trust it or they do not. The same challenge will occupy the time of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State should she inherit responsibility when we form a Government. If one trusts local government, one really has to trust it, and that involves a degree of risk. I do not see this Government being able to do that, because although they talk the talk, they do not quite deliver. One example is regional strategy. The Bill was an opportunity for the Government, if they really believed in local government, to do away with the regional tiers and hand back real authority to local councils, but they have not taken it.
	I wish to touch on two particular examples from my local area: housing numbers; and the difficult issue of Gypsy and Traveller sites. The two new authorities in Bedfordshire following the unitary change, Central Bedfordshire council and Bedford borough council, now have to deal with the planning totals set by the regional spatial strategy. In Central Bedfordshire, that will require 60,000 more houses by 2031. To give the House a sense of scale, I should say that that will require a 50 per cent. increase in population in just 20 years or so in Bedfordshire. The scale of change is extraordinary and much of it is derived not from the pressure of growth in Bedfordshire itself, but from what is happening in the neighbouring growth areas of Luton, Milton Keynes and Bedford. They cannot cope with the infrastructure problems. The eastern region reckons that £1 billion of transport infrastructure is needed to support all this, but there is currently £80 million in the budget for it.
	Bedford borough council, which is now a unitary authority, will be expected to provide 19,500 more houses by 2021, but it has never met previous growth targets, because there was not the infrastructure and engine of growth in Bedford to produce these things. Those are the targets being set by a regional body that has no real understanding of the pressures and needs of Bedford itself. This should not be happening; Bedford councillors should take decisions on the needs of Bedford people in respect of the expansion in housing. Through this Bill the Government have missed an opportunity to take that approach.
	The second issue that I wish to discuss relates to the difficult problems of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which everyone in this place knows are an issue. What has happened in my area is that decisions originally taken by local authorities in terms of their suggested numbers to meet need and demand have then been taken by the regional spatial strategy and the numbers have increased—the numbers were increased further last December. Local councils are now trying to find a number of pitches that they never agreed to and, again, local people feel abandoned because they cannot have a say.
	We all know that the issue is difficult. The local authority will have to provide, but the local authority and its councillors are not accountable for decisions taken that dramatically affect their local communities. The issues in Stotfold and Arlesey in particular, where Conservative local councils have fought continuously in recent times against a very difficult development, emphasise that. When thousands of people in the area protested and wanted to make their opposition to this policy known, they knew that ultimately if their local authority does not move fast enough on the regional spatial programme, the Government have powers to intervene in the planning process, take the planning rights away from the local authority and make the decision over its head. That is an example of how regional top-down control is removing local power, and it is another particular area where the Government do not get it and do not understand why people outside are so frustrated.

Peter Luff: On this important point, is my hon. Friend's area experiencing the problem encountered in my constituency? Wychavon district council has sought to do the right thing by the Traveller community and provide adequate pitches, but finds that its reward is that as it "attracts" more Travellers to the area the Government and the regional strategy impose more and more requirements on that particular area and not on other district councils. Doing the right thing and behaving responsibly are punished, rather than rewarded.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is an immensely difficult process, and I am sure that he shares my frustration with it. In the end, it is local councillors who should make the decision, not unelected people in a tier above.

James Gray: Is it not an added absurdity that if a local authority turns down an application for an illegal Gypsy site such as several of those in my constituency, the planning authority can overturn that local decision on the spurious grounds that insufficient provision has been made for Gypsies and Travellers elsewhere in the area, even though demand appears limited? Surely it is right that the local council should decide how many Gypsies and Travellers there are in the area and how to provide for them.

Alistair Burt: The inspector turns down local feelings expressed by a local planning decision on the grounds of numbers to which the local authority has not had the opportunity to object, let alone control. The numbers are decided by others, so everybody involved in the process feels dissatisfied, not least—on some occasions—Gypsies and Travellers themselves, because they do not get the opportunity to put their case locally. An opportunity for the communities to come closer together is missed in the process of making such decisions regionally.
	I have given two examples, and I cannot believe that the Bill proposes to compound the problem by taking planning powers away from regional assemblies and the regional spatial strategy, and giving them to regional development agencies. I do not know anyone in an RDA who wants these powers. The role is totally unnecessary and not connected to their core activities. They know that their future is under question anyway, and this is the last thing that they want. I wish that the Government had listened and made a different decision.
	I agree with the point made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which want to ensure that regional strategies do not have the concentration on economics that the Bill will give them. It sets great store by regional economic development without a necessary and similar interest in biodiversity and the environment. I prefer the alternative—local economies working together in a voluntary capacity, recognising the need to work together without a supervening structure being imposed on them. That is a difficult concept for Labour Members to grasp, but I hope that they will recognise those environmental needs when they get the chance.
	On part 4 of the Bill, I wish to say a word on behalf of town and parish councils in relation to their involvement in the local authority economic assessment. I am blessed in North-East Bedfordshire with 54 parish councils and five town councils in Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, Potton and Stotfold. They are staffed by people who work incredibly hard for their local area, and their local knowledge is second to none. I hope that the Bill will properly recognise their role. I do not want a shopping list of authorities that are statutory consultees. That was originally in the Bill, but it has been shelved, and that is a good thing. However, it would be nice to have a recognition from the Minister that should these local authority economic assessments come to pass, proper acknowledgement will be made of the work of parish and town councils. I strongly support their continuing development and the work that they do.
	This has been an interesting debate, and some of the messages from it will resonate with the public when they realise that we are at last getting to grips with some of their frustrations. There are many things that will not be the same again after the last few weeks, but one of them must be that when the public tell us about nonsensical things, we deal with them. Several such things have been identified in this debate by my hon. Friends and one or two others. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "We get it. We are not taking forward this Bill, we have heard what's been said and we know we can do better, especially if we let the other side take over in government as soon as possible."

John Gummer: I did not intend to speak in this debate, until it became clear that the Government were making what can only be said to be a wholly unacceptable proposition. I ask the House to consider clause 2, entitled "Democratic arrangements of connected authorities", which includes the phrase:
	"The principal local authority has a duty to promote understanding of the following among local people",
	and the second of the matters that the authority has a duty to promote is
	"the democratic arrangements of those authorities".
	Subsection (3) lists those authorities, and they include the strategic health authority. How can any organisation explain the democratic arrangements of a strategic health authority? There are no democratic arrangements of a strategic health authority. In my constituency, the strategic health authority has just told my constituents that if they are going to have a heart attack they had better move somewhere else. They are going to be transported from Leiston or Felixstowe all the way across the countryside as far as the no doubt excellent hospital on the other side of Cambridge. That is a journey of more than 100 miles and they will be given 90 minutes in which to do it on the A14, which is often closed.
	When the health authority was asked whether the public could comment, the only person who supported it was the hon. Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole), who seemed to say that whatever it said was perfectly all right. There was no public inquiry; there was no opportunity for the public to make any comment at all.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Did the right hon. Gentleman inform the hon. Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole) that he was going to make those comments?

John Gummer: I am very sorry. I see that the hon. Gentleman is in the House at the moment, and it is therefore normally acceptable to mention what is in the public domain. It is in the public domain that the hon. Gentleman said that, and I therefore think it reasonable to mention it, as he is in the House. I would not have mentioned had he not been here.
	For Suffolk county council to teach the people of Suffolk about the democratic methods of the strategic health authority would be impossible. Why do we have a Bill before us that it is impossible to carry through? What happens if I bring a case against Suffolk county council for not informing me of the democratic arrangements of the strategic health authority? The council has an absolute answer in law—it can say that it has no democratic system. It can say that of a series of other authorities listed in the subsection. Primary care trusts are among those authorities listed—no primary care trust has any democratic relationship with the public at all. What could the council say about a local probation board or a probation trust? What could it say about an integrated transport authority, a waste disposal authority, a joint waste disposal authority or a national park authority, which is specifically set up to avoid local people running that part of the country?
	The Minister for Local Government will have to make a very good case to explain how, in a Government Bill, a series of statements are made to ask authorities to carry out duties that are impossible. I have sat in this House for more than 30 years and I have to say to the Secretary of State that I have never come across a Bill in all those years that lays on authorities duties that are of their nature impossible. I hope she will come to this House and explain how a county council can give to the public information about the democratic accountability of a strategic health authority. Those of us who now know that we will be subject to decisions without any kind of discussion—without the county council being allowed even to use the strategic committee to object, because the Government chose to pass those arrangements at a time when there was purdah—will want to ask the Secretary of State how she dares to put in the Bill something that it is impossible to carry through.
	When the Government introduce a Bill, I suggest that the House always look at their words particularly carefully. If they use the words "local democracy", they mean that the measure is neither local nor democratic. It is rather like the climate change levy, which does nothing to combat climate change, although anyone who opposes it is supposed to be insufficiently enthusiastic about fighting climate change. Similarly, if anyone opposes this local democracy Bill, the Government will say that they are not keen on local democracy. In fact, anyone who votes for the Bill is not keen on local democracy, for it has nothing to do with local democracy, but a great deal to do with reinforcing the removal of democratic control over local decisions and laying impossible demands upon local authorities. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Local Government's explanation of what he would say if he were the leader of my county council and he was asked the simple question, "What is the democratic arrangement by which the strategic health authority operates?"

Paul Goodman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has just made a brief speech combining deep local feeling with an expert reading of aspects of the Bill. His speech was entirely appropriate because we have had an expert, well-informed and wide-ranging debate since 3.30 pm, as no statement preceded it. I have been in the Chamber since then, so I have heard all the speeches and I intend to comment on them all in some detail, as they deserve.
	I must flesh out the context in which the Bill is set, but before I do even that, I shall make one simple point. The Secretary of State, as ever, gave a bouncy, feisty and energetic speech enthusiastically backing the Bill—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Labour Members are cheering, because not one single speech by another Labour Member enthusiastically supported the Bill at all. As I was in the Chamber, unlike some Members on the Treasury Bench, I took a careful note of what was said.
	The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) made a powerful speech about one particular point. He said, "I was wrong," and, as he pointed out, it is seldom that a Member is gracious enough to admit that. I hope that the Minister for Local Government listened to him carefully and that he might give him a place on the Public Bill Committee.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) came the nearest to defending the Bill, although he said that he did not give it an "unqualified welcome"—I wrote that bit down especially carefully. On the provision for petitions, he said, "Probably the less said about that the better," and that was almost as enthusiastic as Labour Members got.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said rather hesitantly that the Bill should get further consideration, which was very generous of him. He then referred to Enver Hoxha-ist appellations in relation to regional authorities— [ Interruption. ] Perhaps Labour Members are more familiar with Marxist terminology than I am. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to serve on the Committee and improve the Bill.
	The most profound speech made by a Labour Member was that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), who spoke early in our debate. He was entirely within his rights to be critical about what happened in local government in the 1980s, but he was honest enough to note that there has been "increasing centralisation" under this Government. He gave a masterly and philosophically rigorous analysis of the Bill and concluded that it was a lost opportunity. I hope that the House listened to him carefully and that he too will serve on the Public Bill Committee.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) noted, the Bill comes at a moment of crisis for our democracy in general, and the House in particular. It is no exaggeration to say that a hurricane has swept through the House of Commons in recent weeks. Of course, it is in the nature of hurricanes to devastate the guilty and the innocent alike. I guess that not a single Member here in the Chamber tonight will have been unaffected by the events of recent weeks. Some will now leave the House at the next election. Most of us here this evening have been subject to media attention that has been not entirely complimentary; I put it no stronger than that. We are to lose a Speaker. Seldom, if ever, during the long procession of history has the reputation of this House stood so low.
	Ultimately, the crisis is not about us, or the reputation of 650 or so individual Members of Parliament. It is not even about the reputation of this House as a corporate body. It is about much more. It is about a damaged political system that mirrors our damaged economy. We are in crisis because the whole system is in crisis. If people believe that their elected representatives, whether Members of Parliament or local councillors, are powerless, and that real power lies elsewhere—in the European Union, with an over-mighty Executive, with unelected regional assemblies, or with unaccountable quangos set up by this Government—those representatives will fall into contempt, and they will come to be seen as all the same. In a key respect, they will indeed be all the same: they will, as the saying has it, be in office but not in power.
	Ministers across the Dispatch Box from me know all that full well, even if they cannot or will not admit it. The Minister for Local Government will respond to the debate; I have been his opposite number many times, in proceedings on the Finance Bill and elsewhere. He is always very pleasant, rational and charming, and he always does the best possible job, as he will this evening, of defending the indefensible. They all know perfectly where their philosophy of big government, with its regional assemblies, development agencies and spatial strategies, and all the other things denounced so eloquently by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in his characteristically energetic and uncontrollable way, has brought the country in general, and local government in particular. A single statistic illustrates the point. Turnout in last year's council elections was 35 per cent. We all hope and pray that it will be better on Thursday, but we cannot be sure, let alone have complete confidence. Ministers know the consequences for their Government, for the Prime Minister and for themselves as it all goes wrong for them—as this dishevelled and demoralised Administration limps through to its fifth year, desperate to avoid the general election that the Prime Minister never had the courage to call.
	The Bill gave the Ministers present perhaps the very last chance to fix our broken politics by radically redistributing power, by tearing up the culture of central control, box ticking and target meeting, and by restoring autonomy and control to local government, thus making space for the restoration of civic pride and confidence. Instead, far from striking the chains from local government, the Bill puts new ones in place. One would have thought that local councils and councillors could be trusted to promote democracy, and that if they did not, local people would be capable of electing new councillors who were—but apparently not, according to the Bill. According to the Government, local councillors simply are not up to it; they have to be managed and mollycoddled. They have to have it all set out in statute. A whole chapter of the Bill, chapter 1 of part 1, sets out for local authorities the means by which they must be organised and must promote democracy.
	Again, one would have thought that local councillors could be trusted to respond to petitions, and that if they did not respond to them, local people would be capable of choosing new councillors who did—but again, apparently not. A whole section of the Bill has to set out, in black and white, instructions for local councillors in case they are not capable of responding to petitions themselves—all that in a Bill that has already had some 170 amendments, and that will not be considered for very long in Committee. As hon. Members will see if they care to flick through the Bill, it is full of more powers delegated to the Secretary of State, and more powers to be exercised by statutory instrument. Every single clause is full of such powers.
	Let me turn briefly to some of the speeches. I very much enjoyed what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said about the expert tour made so briefly by planning bodies in his area; they spared five minutes for each place visited in Cheltenham. He put his experience vividly and well. I should also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). This last made a philosophical speech that tried to balance out where power should truly lie. They all contributed very well to the debate. Yet again, we heard a speech from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich followed by one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. They are capable of going round the music halls as a double act. They must sometimes feel that they have been joined at the hip.
	The Bill could have been bold and done many good things. It could have empowered councils to set up new local housing trusts, giving local people the freedom to build the homes they want. It could have empowered councils to keep some of the proceeds of local growth, and it could have empowered councils by giving them a general power of competence—radical reform that would pave the way for the end of local administration and the revival of real local government.
	As well as giving power to local councils, the Bill could have taken it away from central Government. It could have made a bonfire of diktats and controls. It could have scrapped capping, process targets and the imposition, whether they liked it or not, of the cabinet system on local councils. It could have scrapped altogether the reviled and discredited Standards Board. It could have scrapped the comprehensive area assessment and returned local government planning and housing powers where they belong—to local councils.
	Unfortunately, the Bill does none of those things. It gave Ministers on the Treasury Bench a last chance to rise to the scale of the crisis that confronts them, and they have comprehensively failed to take it. There they sit, out of ideas, out of luck, out of time, and shortly to be out of office. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join us in the Lobby tonight.

John Healey: This has been a very good debate. It follows full proceedings in the other place, which were ably led from the Government Benches by Baroness Andrews and Lord Patel, with strong contributions from all parts of that House, as there have been tonight. There were strongly felt but reflective contributions from both sides of the Chamber this evening—expertise from local government and of local government within national Government.
	I cannot recall a Bill that I have led or a debate to which I have responded in the House when quite so many Members on both sides with direct ministerial experience of the issues at the centre of the debate have contributed. I welcome that and encourage all to continue that debate with me and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) in Committee. I look forward to that.
	The Bill has two broad aims, both of which developed from earlier legislation and earlier policy statements that we have issued. The first broad aim is to continue the drive towards stronger local democracy, with more powers both for local authorities and for local people to hold their local authorities to account—principles set out in the White Paper, "Communities in control". The second aim is to do more to promote economic recovery and long-term prosperity and economic development, implementing the proposals first set out in the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration.
	As the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association said, the Bill will give councillors the power to effect real economic change in their local areas. She was right about that. I was interested in the speech from the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He was right, and he was the only one to say this tonight: in the crisis that we face, political parties have an important role. While we look at the procedures of our own Parliament and at questions over the constitution and the political system for the future, we need political parties that are more active, particularly locally and we, as leading members of those parties, have a big part to play within our own parties.
	The Bill may well be, as the hon. Gentleman said, the first Bill that the House is considering after the  Telegraph apocalypse, as he put it, but it does not set out to answer all the questions that have been raised about our politics over the past two to three weeks. It is not constitutional reform legislation, but it sets out a series of sensible, useful steps to improve the way that local authorities can respond to their residents and the ways in which they can work together. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the Bill is important at the moment because we are trying to ensure that people's anger is answered in some way—modestly, in this Bill—through practical changes that both allow them to see more decisions taken within their reach and give them greater influence over and information about such decisions, not just by local authorities but by other agencies in their area. That is what the Bill sets out to do.
	I commented earlier on the high quality of most contributions, but I was really disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) from the Opposition Front Bench, and by that of her hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) just now. She either misreads or misrepresents the Bill's content, because her case against it is confused and her alternative proposals are incoherent at best. She says that much of the Bill is based on best practice and plain common sense, and she is right. The point of the legislation, and the reason it is needed, is that we want all local authorities to do what the best already do. We want them to do so on petitions; by involving people in local decisions not just by councils, but by other local agencies; through a framework, so that those local authorities that want to formalise collaboration with neighbouring local authorities to tackle the economic challenges that go beyond the boundaries of their own area can do so; and by undertaking local economic assessments systematically in every major area.
	The hon. Lady became most confused when she moved on to discuss the regions. She said to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that if his local authority wanted an RDA, it could have one. Then she said that the Opposition would get rid of the whole regional tier. This is not, as she suggests, a Government or a Bill with an obsession about regionalisation; the legislation is a recognition that it is necessary to do some things beyond the boundaries of single local authorities, because the alternative, as in the past, is that decisions are taken and things are done by Whitehall.
	We have regional economies of about 5 million people, and they are as big as some European Union member states. In that respect, our economy in Yorkshire is bigger than those of Norway, of Singapore and of Ireland, so if we do not have serious economic plans in our regions, we will lose out on important inward investment. We need such a policy in all regions, because in the early '80s and '90s too much was centred on the greater south-east, while London overlooked the potential and problems of the north and midlands.
	When we consider the big economic shocks that our country has faced in recent years, such as Longbridge, the Selby pit closures, foot and mouth and the summer floods, we see that the RDAs have proved that they can respond more rapidly than Whitehall and with more clout than any single local council. The alternative to regional level action and plans is either national decisions taken by people in London without the necessary local knowledge, or big councils holding sway, which means that smaller cities and towns lose out.

Martin Horwood: The Minister cites the regional authorities' response to the floods, but they responded to the 2007 floods in Gloucestershire by increasing the allocations in flood-risk and floodplain areas. Was that sensible?

John Healey: I was talking about the response to those floods by the regional development agencies, which the Opposition want to abolish. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that, in Yorkshire, 24 hours after the floods hit, a scheme to support small businesses was up and running and a two-page application form had been prepared and, within seven days, the first payment had been made to businesses that needed help—regional development agencies responding more quickly than Whitehall could, and with more clout and more sway than a single region or council.
	I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) and I shall tackle the question of petitions, because several Members from both sides have raised it. Fewer than one third of local authorities guarantee a response to petitions, and that is why we want to bring all authorities up to the level of the best. The Bill will ensure, for the first time ever, that when people sign a local petition, they will have a right to a public response. We know that petitions are popular; 90 per cent. of people think that councils should take petitions into account and 84 per cent. say that they would be more likely to sign a petition if a response was guaranteed. When the Local Government Association says that only a third of councils will guarantee a response— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many private conversations going on; that is discourteous to the Minister, who is addressing the House.

John Healey: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am trying to respond to points made by hon. Members who have sat through the whole debate.
	Given that a third of councils do not respond to petitions and that even fewer local authorities make information about how they handle petitions publicly available, we need to make sure that all measure up to the best. That is what the Bill does.
	I turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). For a long time, he has been an advocate of local government and a critic of central Government. He took the Government to task by saying that they had been very centralised since 1997. That is a fair characterisation of the early days but in the past few years, as local government has got so much better, we can point to the first ever three-year funding settlement and the cutting of a lot of the funding strings; the removal of many of the reporting requirements and targets; and local area agreements, which are put in place and negotiated with local areas. Furthermore, there have been above-inflation increases in the central Government grants to local government each and every year since 1997. As my hon. Friend will remember, that is absolutely in contrast to the years before 1997, when local government funding was cut.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) generally supported the Bill, and I welcome that. He especially welcomed the formalisation of multi-area agreements, saying that they would particularly help Olympic boroughs such as his; he was right about that. He spoke about electronic payments from parish councils and promised to move amendments and initiate a debate on that issue. If he decides to do that, I shall ensure that we take a close look at his proposals.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is right that multi-area agreements and leaders' boards are a challenge to direct accountability. The challenge is this: how do we deal with a situation in which there is no directly elected sub-regional or regional government—an idea that ended with the result of the referendum on an elected assembly for the north-east? How do we set up a system in which directly elected representatives can operate and take decisions with implications beyond the boundaries of their own local authority areas? There is no easy answer, but what if some functions are needed at that level and if those functions need to be more open and responsive, and capable of better scrutiny and of being held more publicly to account? In that case, elected council leaders, working through a leaders' board, multi-area agreements in which councils voluntarily sign up to collaborate together, and Regional Select Committees, set up by the House, must be part of the answer.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

John Healey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then finish off.

Hugo Swire: Elected regional assemblies, the brainwave of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—if that is not an oxymoron—have been abandoned. Is it not time for the Government to admit that tampering with local authority organisation is over and to abandon ideas to force counties such as Devon into a unitary authority? The preferred option is to have enhanced working between the district councils and the existing county councils.

John Healey: I knew that I would regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman. His point relates to a debate for the future, after the boundary committee for England reports in mid-July. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I and the rest of the House do that his point has nothing to do with the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) immediately "got" the purpose of the Bill and explained clearly how the local authorities in his area, through the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire, are working together to benefit the wider area and need and want a way of formalising the framework within which they can do that. The Bill gives them that opportunity.
	The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) described to the House an area in his constituency known as Lilley Bottom; I am glad that he did not mix geography with anatomy as he did so. As he will know, his serious point still has to be tested by inspectors, and that does not allow Ministers to comment at this stage. Just to be clear, local councils do not have specific powers to fulfil their house building targets by seeking planning permission to build in the territory of other local authorities, but we do support councils when they look to prepare joint plans and joint initiatives and decide between them how best to accommodate their housing needs.

Peter Lilley: rose—

John Healey: I will give way one last time, and then, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to respond to other hon. Members—and right hon. Members; Privy Counsellors, therefore—who have contributed to the debate.

Peter Lilley: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way and for responding to my point. Is he saying that if a council seeks planning permission in another area without the agreement to which he referred, any houses that it builds will therefore not count towards its housing target?

John Healey: No, I am saying that councils do not have specific powers to do that. If the right hon. Gentleman consults the record, he will see that that is exactly what I said.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) is most generous in his blandishments, and he is very good at them. I will have further discussions with the County Councils Network, and meet it if he wishes me to do so, but I cannot promise to change the view that I have taken because there is a very strong case for not making the change that he is looking for.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) is a lifelong committee man, not only on local authorities, with their five or six-hour sittings, as he explained to us, but at the TUC when he worked there. He shared some serious reflections about people often not knowing who does what in a council or what is the distinction between a councillor and an MP. The Bill will help to deal with that problem.
	In response to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I hope that his Front Benchers heard his defence of RDAs and the valuable role that they play. His Select Committee's report was very good, and I recommend it to the House, particularly as an endorsement of strong support for a level of governance between central Government and local authorities. I will endeavour to get him a response before we start the Committee proceedings on the Bill.
	Some have argued that now is the wrong time to produce the sort of local democratic moves that we have produced in this Bill, but it is precisely at times such as this that these measures are needed. It is now more important than ever to get people more involved in their communities, their local authorities and the other agencies that provide services in their area. People simply will not understand the opposition of the Opposition to these modest and measured steps. Nor will they understand their plans to abolish regional development agencies, regional planning, and regional government offices—in fact, anything that happens to have the prefix "regional" attached to its name. I have to say to the hon. Member for Meriden that if nothing is done above the level of the local council and there is no legal framework for that, we will fail to provide the housing, renewable energy, transport investment, widespread regeneration and business support that this country needs. Her opposition to the Bill does not have the support of her own Tory colleagues in local government, and she should not command the backing of this House. I commend the Bill to the House and urge Members to give it a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 154.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time.

LOCAL DEMOCRACY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A (7) ),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords]:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 June 2009.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.— (Claire Ward.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 153.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords] (money)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question put  forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) ),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act;
	(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by virtue of the Act;
	(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money provided by Parliament. — (Claire Ward.)
	 Question agreed to.

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52 (1)(a) ),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees by—
	(a) the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England, and
	(b) the Auditor General for Wales,
	under provisions of the Act relating to the audit of entities connected with local authorities. — (Claire Ward.)
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Middle East

Roger Williams: By leave of the House, I beg to lay a petition relating to the recent conflict in Gaza between the Palestinians and Israelis. It calls for both sides to work towards a lasting and just peace and a suspension of military aid to both sides, and it calls on the EU and USA to adopt similar practices. The petition has been collected by the Brecknock Peace and Justice Group and contains more than 140 names.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the Brecknock Peace and Justice Group, and others,
	Declares great concern at the continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to do everything in his power to work for a lasting and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians; to suspend all military aid, co-operation and arms sales to both sides in the conflict until a lasting peace agreement is concluded; and to press both the European Union and the United States of America to adopt similar policies.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000337]

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: I wish to present two petitions, the first of which relates to a limited number of homes in a street in my constituency, hence it is signed by only a few neighbours. None the less, it is of importance to, and represents the views of, the people directly affected and so is of significance. I know that the inspector will carefully consider it and all the relevant facts, and make a wise decision that will be fair to all the parties involved.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Mr and Mrs Hall and others,
	Declares that, as the close neighbours of the development at 9B Westwood Road, Canvey Island, who are really the only ones directly affected by the issue, we support the building alterations and are happy for the new roof extension on the property to remain and do not feel that it destroys the street scene in any way and that it would be disproportionate to force the removal of the alterations.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to respect the views of those living in the surrounding houses and to approve the appeal.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000376]

Green Belt Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: I shall move on to my second petition. I rise again in my long-standing battle to save our green belt, and this petition is one of the most important that I have ever had the privilege to present to Parliament. We must fight to stop building on Canvey's floodplains, school fields and green land, and to get the additional access road that is so desperately needed by Canvey people. People are not fools and they are deeply angry when councillors try to tell them that the wider community implicitly agrees with their plans to build on our green belt. That sort of spin and misrepresentation makes people immensely angry about political parties and politicians. I warmly congratulate and thank Graham and Linda Bracci, Debbie Walker, Cheryl Redwin, Bill and Marion Perkins, Jan Eagle, Kerri Thipthorpe and all the excellent people of Canvey island—it is an honour to represent them.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Ashleigh Sharp and others,
	Declares that building on Canvey's flood plain, school fields and green land is totally unacceptable and that what Canvey really needs is an additional access road from the Northwick area; welcomes the recent referendum which was professionally organised and conducted by Graham Bracci and others, taken over the last few weeks on Canvey Island, in which 6,534 people voted of whom 99.13 per cent. supported the motion that there should be no further development on Canvey Island greenbelt land; also welcomes the Constituency wide 'Save Castle Point Greenbelt' campaign which was launched by Bob Spink MP in March 2007 and the subsequent localised save the greenbelt campaigns such as that to stop development on Daws Heath; and notes the overwhelming view of Castle Point residents that their greenbelt should be protected and totally rejects the suggestion by Castle Point Councillors that residents implicitly agree with their Core Strategy plan to build on greenbelt.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Essex County and Castle Point Borough Councillors to respect the flood plain, rescind plans to sell off part of Castle View School playing field, protect Castle Point greenbelt in its core strategy and make the Canvey additional access road their priority.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000375]

ILLEGAL RADIO BROADCASTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Claire Ward.)

James Brokenshire: Three years ago, I first highlighted the dangers posed by illegal radio stations. The purpose of tonight's debate is to raise this issue in the House again and to highlight that, sadly, very little progress has been made in the last three years to establish a co-ordinated strategy to deal with illegal broadcasters; to increase the opportunities for community radio stations to satisfy unmet need in their neighbourhoods; and to address the serious problems caused by some illegal broadcasters whose activities show a wanton disregard for the well-being of others.
	I use the terms "illegal radio stations" or "unlawful broadcasts", rather than "pirate stations", because of the nostalgic impression that the latter phrase implies. The recent Richard Curtis film, "The Boat that Rocked", brings to mind this buccaneering approach, with new and innovative unregulated stations challenging previous orthodoxies on music and the whole approach to broadcasting—the results of which form part of the style and sound of the commercial and BBC radio stations that we hear today.
	In many ways, that historic view of what pirate or illegal radio stations were about is part of the issue. It implies that these stations were simply about breaking new boundaries, breaking the mould of popular culture and staying one step ahead of the regulators, who were out to stifle choice and new ways of doing things. In no way do I want to affect the vibrancy of radio as a medium or to stop the ability of communities to establish stations to meet the needs and interests of new listeners. I am a real enthusiast for radio and the power of the medium. Indeed, the primary reason for initiating this debate was the problems that my own community radio station in Havering, Link FM 102.2, has been suffering.
	The reality of most of today's illegal radio stations, as contrasted with the pioneering pirates of the 1960s, could not be starker. According to Ofcom, the vast majority of these stations exist simply as illegal businesses that promote events at nightclubs and make significant sums of cash from advertising and from exploiting young MCs or DJs conned into paying out cash to take the mic and potentially put at risk their ability thereafter to work in the industry to which they aspire.
	Some illegal stations have become linked to forms of serious criminal behaviour, with some illegal broadcasters being convicted for offences such as money laundering, drugs supply and firearms offences. The illegal stations are often operated with disregard for the health and safety of others, and cause significant disruption and damage to legitimate businesses that have paid significant sums of money to the Government in licence fees for radio frequencies that are in part unusable.
	Illegal broadcasting by its very nature is entirely unregulated. It feels no prohibition on playing music that might glamorise gang violence or drug culture. It is accountable to no one for what it broadcasts. It abides by no programming codes on taste or decency and it operates without any regard for the consequences of what may be said on air. Pirate radio was thought to have triggered the Lozells riots in October 2005 by inciting racial tensions in Birmingham by spreading false rumours that a black woman had been raped by Asian men. But there are many other ways in which illegal broadcasting can cause harm. Signals from illegal broadcasters can interfere with other radio systems, and when this happens to emergency and critical services it is particularly serious.
	In the six months from April to September 2008, Ofcom field engineers investigated a total of 36 reports from emergency and critical services of interference that was directly attributable to illegal broadcasters. The large majority of those complaints were from the fire service and National Air Traffic Services. Some recent examples given to me by Ofcom include the following. On 1 April 2009, NATS contacted Ofcom, complaining of interference affecting aircraft using Heathrow airport. The source of the interference was an illegal broadcaster, Laylow FM. Ofcom officials traced the source and a transmitter was seized from the roof of a high-rise block in west London. On Friday 15 May 2009, NATS again reported interference affecting aircraft in the area of Heathrow, which was traced to Flames FM and Millennium Supreme FM, which were both traced to the same high-rise block in Bow in east London. Both stations were taken off air. On Thursday 20 May 2009, NATS reported serious interference to five of its locations around London. This interference was large scale and the source was one illegal broadcaster, Flames FM. The station was again taken off air by Ofcom officials.
	The London fire brigade has told Ofcom that it suffers radio interference from illegal radio broadcasts on average once every two weeks. When this occurs, control room staff are unable to make contact with crews en route to an emergency, which means that the effective co-ordination of such operations is diminished. When its control centre suffers from such interference and is unable to receive messages from crews at one site only, it has the ability to inhibit receivers at that site. That is a short-term measure and reduces overall coverage across London.
	Significant damage to public property can be caused by illegal broadcasters when installing and maintaining their apparatus. Some local authorities are reported to be paying more than £250,000 a year on repairing damage and securing roof spaces, but such activities also have a human side. Concerned residents and officials who challenge the activities of illegal broadcasters—often the caretakers and others responsible for the safety and maintenance of estates—are threatened with physical violence or suffer intimidation.
	In one example provided by Ofcom from last year, two of its officials were confronted by two men after they disconnected the transmitter of an illegal broadcast station in Haringey and were threatened with a knife. Some illegal broadcasters locate their equipment in private dwellings, taking advantage of vulnerable people or using coercion. Damage may be caused to locked roof access doors, creating further risk of harm with the possibility of children being able to access dangerous environments—not to mention the booby-trapping of equipment.
	An illegal broadcaster will identify a slot in the FM broadcasting band. It will then locate its transmitter on high ground, usually on the roof of a local authority building, typically a residential tower block. The transmitters are crude in construction and are not electronically safe. To feed the transmitter, the illegal broadcaster will tap into the building's power supply, often by diverting electricity from the lift motor room with consequential safety issues. The equipment has also been known to be secured with live mains electricity applied to roof access doors and sharp objects such as razor blades, syringe needles and broken glass secured to roof access ladders.
	There is a misconception that the people behind illegal radio stations are just enthusiasts with an interest in music and broadcasting. Some claim that they break the law because they want to serve a community need. There are a minority for whom that might be true, but the truth is that the majority of illegal broadcasters are motivated by money. Set-up costs are minimal. A transmitter costs around £350 and a good-quality studio can be assembled for £3,000. Revenue comes from two sources. Many DJs pay to broadcast on illegal radio stations in an attempt to gain public exposure. Predominantly young people, most DJs are exploited by station managers who will charge them up to £20 per hour for the chance to appear on air. Illegal radio stations also receive income from selling advertising, often publicising events at nightclubs.
	The rewards can be significant. Some of these well-organised criminal businesses are generating as much as £250,000 in cash a year, going into the unlawful, untaxed economy. That puts into context why people in the radio industry regard current court fines following convictions for unlawful radio broadcast offences as utterly derisory. Last year these fines averaged just £486, with offences being treated like TV licensing offences.
	Ofcom estimates that there are around 150 illegal broadcasters in the UK, with more than 60 per cent. operating in London. At any one time it is believed that up to 90 illegal broadcasters are transmitting in London. I want to pay tribute to Ofcom for the work it does in taking enforcement action against the illegal broadcasters. Last year, Ofcom conducted 525 separate operations. Ofcom staff have developed close working relationships with specialised areas of the police service, such as elements of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the regional asset recovery teams and the National Policing Improvement Agency.
	Ofcom staff work with affected local authorities and housing associations as well as the mobile phone operators whose masts are sometimes targeted as a location for main transmitters of the illegal broadcasters. It is right that there should be a co-ordinated partnership approach given the need for preventive measures, the serious crime issues, the health and safety implications, the cost for local government and other governmental agencies and the fact that enforcement alone will not provide a longer-term solution to the menace of the illegal broadcasters.
	That was why I asked various parliamentary questions to a number of Departments to establish how well the Government were responding to the issues. Despite what Ofcom has reported on the links to serious criminality, the Home Office told me that it was
	"unaware of a linkage between illegal radio broadcasting and serious organised criminality."—[ Official Report, 19 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 1234W.]
	Despite the risks set out by Ofcom on the damage caused to social housing blocks, the Department of Communities and Local Government told me:
	"We have not made any assessment of the health and safety risk to social housing tenants caused by equipment installed for the purposes of illegal radio broadcasts."—[ Official Report, 4 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 341W.]
	Despite the potential disruption of air traffic control signals guiding airliners over our heads, the Department of Transport was content to respond:
	"NATS, the leading air navigation services provider, is a private company and questions concerning the extent of disruption to its air traffic control services should be directed to the company's chief executive."—[ Official Report, 11 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 955W.]
	Those responses do not inspire confidence that a longer-term, sustained and joined-up approach to the problems posed by the illegal stations will be created.
	Will the Minister commit to work with other Departments to highlight the risks associated with illegal radio broadcasts? Will he discuss with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport the potential for exploring whether there are any other ways of using the existing FM spectrum more effectively to address unmet community needs, and whether the existing regulatory regime, which is based on promises of performance, remains fit for purpose in promoting choice and diversity in broadcast output?
	Will the Minister also confirm with DCMS the effect of illegal broadcasts on the fledgling community radio sector? It is somewhat ironic that community stations, which have greater flexibility in their programming output and greater scope to meet a broader range of interests—in many ways they are intended to meet the desires for aspiring radio talent—should be the worst affected by the impact of the illegal stations. I know that my community station, Link FM, has struggled to attract advertising when its broadcasts over its small area have been disrupted and often blocked out by a pirate squatting on an adjacent frequency.
	Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice the possibility for community punishments or other sanctions being made available for breaches of the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, instead of relying on fines that do not appear to offer any meaningful sanctions? I have been encouraged by Ofcom's work with law enforcement on using proceeds of crime recovery powers. Will the Minister ask his officials to explore whether any similar powers or sanctions might be utilised, such as antisocial behaviour orders and other injunctive relief?
	I appreciate that the Minister has a lot of other pressing items and priorities on his desk, but this issue is causing harm, exploiting the vulnerable and potentially putting people at risk. I hope that it will not take another three years until a more co-ordinated, meaningful and effective approach is brought to bear on a problem that is simply not going away.

Patrick McFadden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on securing this debate on an issue in which he has a long-standing interest. As he said, he secured an Adjournment debate on the matter three years ago and he has tabled several parliamentary questions. The issue is of interest to several hon. Members. For example, the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who is in the Chamber, has raised it with me because her community radio station's frequency is regularly occupied by illegal stations. In my capacity of a constituency MP, I know the value of community radio stations such as Link FM, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and Wolverhampton Community Radio, which does an absolutely excellent job for my city.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, in any debate about illegal or pirate radio, there is a temptation to be wistful about the days of Radio Caroline and to pay tribute to the free spirit and early creativity of pirate radio. That temptation might be stronger when a popular film that celebrates that era is out, as is the case at the moment. However, as he said, comparisons between then and now do not stand up to scrutiny. Back then, there was little choice for the listener and unlicensed radio was often the only way to hear much of the music of the time. Today, however, that is not the case, as there are hundreds of radio stations throughout the country. The digital revolution is making setting up legitimate radio stations and getting them licensed ever easier, so the point about choice can no longer be argued. The issues surrounding pirate radio—or illegal radio, as he called it—are very different from those that existed in the 1960s. Today, pirate radio undermines legitimate radio. It can be used as a cover for more serious crimes, and the act of setting up a pirate radio station can have a damaging effect on people's quality of life. In other words, pirate radio is a serious issue and it is taken seriously by the Government.
	My Department, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, has policy responsibility for the radio spectrum and the legislation from which Ofcom, the independent regulator, derives its powers. Those powers come from the Communications Act 2003 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. Ofcom's duties include ensuring the efficient use of the spectrum and minimising harmful interference. My ministerial colleague Lord Stephen Carter, the founding chief executive of Ofcom, takes the lead on spectrum issues for my Department. He has a great deal of expertise on the issue. He cares passionately about it, and he tells me that in his past life, he took part in a raid with police officers to close down precisely the kind of illegal station that the hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned.
	I want to go through some of the damaging effects of such stations. The first that I want to highlight is the damaging effect on the many excellent legitimate local radio stations around the country; we have mentioned a couple of them. The founders of those radio stations have gone through the process of getting a licence. They have done the hard work of building up an audience. They are funded by the licence fee, in the case of BBC local radio, or through hard-won advertising revenue, yet they find that their signals are blocked by illegal stations that have done none of that work. That not only frustrates the listener, who cannot hear the station that they want to, but can hit the income of the station through loss of advertising revenue, as advertisers will be reluctant to spend money if they think that the delivery of the service is patchy and unreliable. Sometimes a whole borough can be knocked out of reception.
	The commercial effect is deeply damaging, but there is an even more serious aspect, which the hon. Gentleman highlighted: interference with blue-light emergency services and air traffic control. When someone calls the fire brigade or the police, we want the most reliable communications possible. We want nothing to stand in the way of the emergency services knowing where the problem is, and getting there as fast as possible. Of course we do not want interference with critical air traffic control communication. Pirate radio can interfere with those vital services, so its operation is not just a matter of commercial damage; there is also an issue of public safety. The figure that the hon. Gentleman gave of 36 cases reported to him by Ofcom in just six months last year shows that we are not talking about a theoretical scare, but about a real danger.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to point out the damaging impact that pirate stations have on their immediate local environment. There are issues affecting tower blocks, and there can be a loss of power supply to lifts, and damage to buildings. Sometimes the installations are guarded with glass, syringes and other things that create a danger for those trying to enforce the law. When people go to those lengths, we should not be surprised that illegal broadcasting can sometimes be linked to other illegal behaviour. In one case a few years ago, an illegal broadcaster had his studio raided, and at the police station was found to be in possession of a loaded firearm. He was eventually sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
	The chief responsibility for stopping the proliferation of illegal radio stations lies with Ofcom, which derives its power for spectrum allocation and use in the UK from the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. It is inevitably difficult to say exactly how many pirate stations there are; they are, by their nature, being set up and closed down all the time. Ofcom estimates that there are about 150 illegal broadcasters, most of them concentrated in the London area. Ofcom aims to reduce interference by sending out a strong message that illegal broadcasters will suffer consequences. It uses a range of criteria to determine when to act, including the size of the area of the broadcast and the volume of complaints. When an issue could endanger lives, Ofcom obviously and rightly treats it as a matter of priority for investigation and action.
	As for penalties, an illegal broadcaster can receive up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Anyone convicted of an offence is barred from working for a legitimate station for five years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fines, and I want to address that point directly. It is for Parliament to set the legal framework of punishment. I have just set out the maximum punishments, but it is always for the courts to apply those penalties as they see fit. One of the problems of challenging illegal stations is that we might be able to get to those operating the equipment at the time, but it might be a much more difficult task for the authorities to get to whoever may be behind them. The person operating the equipment, their income and their employment status will be taken into account by the court. That in part explains the level of fines that are levied.
	Ofcom obtained authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to access data about telephone, e-mail and internet communications and to undertake covert surveillance. In May this year it was added to the list of law enforcement agencies that are empowered to conduct financial investigations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These extra powers may give Ofcom a greater capacity to get behind those who are operating the station at the time of the raid.

James Brokenshire: I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. On sanctions, he made the point well about the assessment of needs and the ability to level fines. I suggested to him that other mechanisms might be explored—a different sort of sanction, such as community punishment. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider discussing with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice whether that route can be explored so that there is perceived to be a meaningful sanction rather than a fine which, I understand, in many cases may go unpaid?

Patrick McFadden: As I said, other options are already available to the courts, but they will select the penalty on the basis of some of the factors that I cited.
	With reference to resources, last year Ofcom spent £1.5 million on enforcement. It undertook 525 separate operations against illegal broadcasters, resulting in 28 convictions. Those included the seizure of transmitters, disconnection of transmitters' aerials, and raids on studios. When there are convictions, the courts are responsible for punishment within the limits set by Parliament.
	It is not true to say that the issue is not taken seriously by the Government or Ofcom, but there is a difficult truth. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is relatively cheap and simple to set up illegal radio stations. No matter how much resource is put into tackling the problem, the regulator inevitably faces a tough battle in trying to control the numbers. Despite these difficulties, tough punishments can be levied. Let us take the example of Lightning FM.
	In December 2007, the owner of a south London illegal radio station, Lightning FM, appeared at Inner London Crown court convicted of two counts of money laundering and two counts of managing an illegal broadcast station. For the money laundering offences he received 10 months' imprisonment, and for the illegal broadcast offences another 10 months. A financial investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act was then conducted and the person was ordered to pay £375,000 to the court within 12 months. Should he fail to pay within the time, the individual will serve a default prison sentence of no less than four years, and action will be taken to recover the money owed.
	I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about fines, but where there is a link to other illegal activity, significant sentences can be imposed. The issue is not for Ofcom alone, but for a number of agencies. I spoke today to the head of spectrum enforcement at Ofcom in advance of the debate. He told me that the Government's introduction of safer neighbourhood policing teams has helped significantly in co-ordinating the work between the police and Ofcom on the issue. So developments have taken place since the hon. Gentleman's debate three years ago, which make it easier for the agencies to work together. Ofcom has developed close relationships with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, regional asset recovery teams and other agencies. Following the hon. Gentleman's previous debate, one of my predecessors in the Department held a specially convened meeting with a number of agencies to help to co-ordinate that activity, too. Ofcom has also negotiated service level agreements in a variety of police sectors throughout London, enabling staff to purchase police support.
	In the past, pirate radio stations may have had a role in nurturing talent and in ensuring that minority tastes were properly catered for but, for the reasons that I have set out, it is much more difficult to argue that case today. Now, such stations are much more harmful. They can even be dangerous and, critically, as technology changes and the digital revolution unfolds, there is less need for them than ever before. My Department is working on its "Digital Britain" report, a key part of which will involve extending access to legitimate creative people who want to establish radio stations. The question that will be asked much more frequently in the future is: why is there a need for such stations, unless it is for some motive far less high-minded than musical creativity and choice? That is why the Government and Ofcom will continue to take enforcement seriously.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate tonight, and I am sure that those Departments other than my own to which he referred, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will take account of his comments. He is absolutely right to say that we must work together throughout Government to tackle what is a serious issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.